Agricultural Ethics - Term Paper Example

Agricultural Ethics Introduction Ethics is all about making choices, hence agricultural ethics are concerned with all about choices made by people who are associated with agriculture in a way or another. They can be associated with farming or agriculture directly like farmers or indirectly like government regulating bodies, researchers, agents, CEOs, lawmakers, industrial workers, protestors, consumers or technology developers. Though, choices are made by almost all of us, only a few of us engage ourselves actively in the ethical analysis of the choices made and have logical reasons for the choices made. There is no any widely accepted definition of ethics and general public have different ideas about ethics. For some, ethics mean adherence to the law while for others it is adherence to the spirit. Similarly, for some it is concerned with the religious beliefs while for others it is concerned with the standards of the culture or the community. The definitions given by the enthusiasts are more complex containing some or all elements mentioned above describing what are concerned with ethics and what are not. However, the discussion here is not to focus on the accurate and widely accepted definition of ethics but about the what are the factors related to agricultural ethics. Many professionals have put considerable efforts in defining factors related to agricultural ethics. Agricultural Ethics It is quite interesting that those who are engaged in agriculture or associated with farming directly like farmers or indirectly like government regulating bodies, researchers, agents, CEOs, lawmakers, industrial workers, protestors, consumers or technology developers believe that their moral ground is higher than others as they are associated with one of the most noble endeavors of the humans which is feeding the people and this provides them an extraordinary moral confidence which tends to neglect the need of examining the choices made by them (Burgess, 1998). According to ethicists Ahlstrom, Bruton & Yeh, (1997) those who are associated with the production of agriculture and those who support agricultural activities with technology have a strong belief that as they are increasing the agricultural production to meet the growing demand, they are exempted from the continuous process of political negotiation and renegotiation about the moral bargain which is the pillar of the modern society and democracy. All of them engaged in either discovery of new agricultural technologies or gene cloning or the lawmakers supporting farming with subsidies or breeding new plants or manufacturing pesticides and fertilizers or doing organic farming feel themselves “full steam ahead,” than others because they have the responsibility of feeding 3 billion more people by 2050 and they firmly believe that the choices made by them are correct and ethical and they are not ready to accept any criticism for what they do. There is a need to understand the agricultural ethics and there are many theories of ethics and the agricultural ethics will be discussed on the basis of some of them. Ethical Theories There are various ethical theories such as God and Human Nature, Consequentialism, Kantian Ethics, Social Contract Theory, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Ethics, Moral Nihilism, and/or Ethical Explorations, Ethical Provocations, Conflicts as Creative Opportunities and the paper will focus especially on three theories - Consequentialism, Kantian Ethics and Moral Nihilism. Consequentialism Consequentialism can be defined as among all the actions of a person the morally right action is that which has the best consequences or the best outcomes. It means that the results or consequences of an action decide whether the action is right or wrong and if an action has more good results or consequences it means that the action is more right or better. Consequentialism helps in taking decisions in the case of moral dilemma and it guides in opting for an action which has better consequences. It also helps in better living by guiding people to live with the actions that maximize better consequences. There are different types of consequentialism depending on the definitions of the good thing which is needed to be maximized. According to utilitarianism the good thing which is needed to be maximized is the well – being of the human or human welfare which is also called as 'utility' by them. According to hedonism the good thing which is needed to be maximized is the pleasure of the human. Consequentialism is a flexible system which can be applied in a different set of circumstances. Some ethicists are of the opinion that consequentialism is not practical for use in real life however attractive it is theoretically because there are many moral decisions taken by people every day and they are completely different from each other and have different consequences and it is quite impractical for individuals to evaluate and research for the consequences of their different moral decisions so that an ethical choice can be made. Evaluation or research on the consequences is a time taking process which may delay the action which is itself a bad consequence. It can be only applicable for making moral decisions on serious actions (Tilman et al. 2002). Kantian Ethics Kant’s theory of ethics is known as Kantian ethics which suggests that ethics have to work unconditionally without any exception and universally being applied to all humans. According to him the purpose of life is happiness and everybody seeks gratification and pleasure and hopes that their efforts are for the happiness but happiness is not within the control of the people rather it is a matter of luck. He further adds that the ‘good will’ of the people is very crucial and it is a will acting from duty as a ‘good – in – itself’ without any qualification. Kant considers duty as an important factor of action and distinguishes between ‘the class of actions performed from duty’ and ‘the class of actions in accordance with duty’. He further adds that the moral values remain in the first case which suggests that if one has a great desire to disincline to act from a duty, the result of the actions will have great moral worth and the actions performed with only inclination will not have any moral worth. Kantian ethics are different from consequentialism and establishes that the consequences of decisions are not in the control of the people (Kogut, 1998). Moral Nihilism Moral nihilism is based on the denial of the existence of any moral property or fact. According to it there is no property or fact which is morally good or bad and morally right or wrong. Moral nihilism is also known as moral noncognitivism which suggests that ethical statements such as “tormenting kitten for fun is morally not right” or “forgiveness is morally very good” cannot be considered as true nor false but they merely expressions. These expressions are imperative giving suggestion or approving or disapproving an action (Carson, 1962). Noncognitivism is of two types - prescriptivism and emotivism. Prescriptivism is also known as imperativism and according to it the moral statement like “tormenting kitten for fun is morally not right” is an expression of command, e.g. expressing “don’t torment kitten for fun.” Emotivism does not agree with prescriptivism and suggests that the moral statement like “forgiveness is morally very good” is an expression approving or disapproving an action e.g. “forgiveness is morally very good”. Emotivism is also known as boo-hurrah ethical theory. The expressions mentioned above can also be expressed as “Hurrah for forgiveness!” and “Tormenting, Boo!” Ethical dilemmas in agriculture The ethical dilemmas in agriculture are not immutable but they change with time. Slavery has been a common practice in agriculture, but it no longer exists. Use of new technologies has multiple consequences and it can be condemned on the basis of consequentialism. For example, Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America has increased the production of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rice (Oryza sativa) but affected millions of people who lost their employment or access to their land. The issue has an ethical dimension and cannot be justified for its end results. Other agricultural practices which have ethical dimensions are increasing use of pest control, fertilizers, herbicides, genetic engineering to increase the production but they have severe consequences for human health, sustainability of the eco-system, stewardship of the land. Consumers are benefitted with lower commodity prices but ignoring the consequences is fatal. There are many agricultural practices which have severe impact on the environment. Those who are engaged in agricultural production and meeting the increased demand of the agricultural products are so narrow minded in their objectives that they neglect the concerns and position of others environmentalists, modern agriculturalists, other practitioners of organic agriculture, etc. They, in fact, have not valued any other issues related to agricultural than increasing agricultural production. Increasing agricultural production is important but at the same time agricultural sustainability is equally important which requires substantial innovation in agriculture. Children on the street of Kolkata, India. (Source: Clougherty, 2000) About 800 million people in the world manage their livelihood on less than $ 1 per day and are not food secure. They can be found everywhere in the world be it the streets of Calcutta, or in the streets of San Fransisco. Agricultural subsidy is a common practice in developed economies to lower the commodity prices. People of developed countries can pay their farmers but the people of developing countries can’t. This has affected the agricultural developments in developing countries where agriculture is no more profitable. The food should be sold at competitive prices in this age of globalization which means a slow and painful transition phase for every country. The steps are needed to be taken by the developed countries for the development of agriculture in developing countries in becoming independent in food production. Introduction of new technology has both winners and losers as the Green Revolution increased the agricultural production but marginalized many farmers. Agricultural ethics require to consider the fate of all when new technology is introduced (Dunning, 1999). Another agricultural issue which has ethical dimensions is the intellectual property rights and patent rights which prevents developing countries to implement many agricultural developments in their own countries. The outcomes of the agricultural research cannot be compared with the outcome of industrial research because agriculture is related to food. Conclusion Thus, it is needed to enforce tangible policies and to introduce new technologies for the development of agriculture and but at the same time it is also needed to educate all associated with agriculture, directly or indirectly, about the social consciousness to equip them to deal with agricultural issues ethically and fairly. The agricultural sector has the challenge to feed over 9 billion people in the 21st century and it is needed to see the bigger picture of agriculture but the agricultural ethics must not be forgotten. References Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. Houghton Miflin, New York Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Yeh, K. S. (1997) The Doubly Green Revolution. Asia Pacific Journal of Agricultural Management, 24 (3): 247–268. Burgess, S. M (1998) International Requirement of Agricultural Development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 22 (2): 157–182. Clougherty, J. (2000) Agroecology. Sustainable Agriculture and Ecological Processes. Sustainability Management Journal, 26 (8): 769–790. Dunning, J. H. (1999) The need of agricultural sustainability. Advances in International Agricultural Management, vol. 15: 3–27. Oxford: Elsevier. Kogut, B. (1998) Theories of Agricultural Ethics. Research Frontiers in International Business, Duke University Tilman, D., Cassmann, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S. (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671–677 Read More