Philosophy

In the voluminous literature on the subject of bGH we have yet to find an attempt to frame the issue in specifically moral terms or to address systematically its ethical implications. I argue that there are two moral objections to the technology: its treatment of animals, and its dislocating effects on farmers. There are agricultural biotechnologies that deserve funding and support. bGH is not one of them.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Gary Varner’s essay “Utilitarianism and the Evolution of Ecological Ethics” on the evolution of the code of the Ecological Society of America is at once provocative and programmatic [1]. Proving the relevance of ethical theory to the practice of the professional study of ecology, it identifies not only the key questions for future research but, in addition, an extensive set of plausible hypotheses.One example is the role of intuitive level system (ILS) rules.Intuitive level system (ILS) rules are practical moral norms developed by societies for agents to follow more or less unreflectively. When they are the result of critical reflection, ILS rules recommend actions that promote the greater good of the whole. Following R. M. Hare, Varner argues that the overall good will be maximized if, as a matter of course, low-level rules are regarded as well-founded truths and acted on more-or-less unthinkingly. For two-level utilitarians, moral agents are generally justified in acting on ILS rule ...

Environmental ethics consists of a set of competing theories about whether human actions and attitudes to nature are morally right or wrong. Ecocentrists are holists whose theory locates the primary site of value in biological communities or ecosystems and who tend to regard actions interfering with the progress of an ecosystem toward its mature equilibrium state as prima facie wrong. I suggest that this form of ecocentrism may be built on a questionable scientific foundation, organismic ecology, and that a better scientific foundation for environmental ethics may be found in individualistic neo-Darwinian population biology. However, the latter approach probably requires a corresponding shift away from ethical holism and toward approaches locating value primarily in individuals. I call such environmental ethicists ‘extensionists’ and briefly outline an extensionist environmental ethic.

followed by two new essays. In the first four chapters Comstock lays out his arguments against, respectively, use of bovine growth hormone, herbicide-resistant plants, transgenic animals, and agricultural biotechnology. In the last two chapters he significantly revises the opinions defended in the earlier four articles and essentially supports agricultural biotechnology and challenges some of the arguments presented in the first four chapters.

Editors' Note: The following papers on" Autonomy and the Moral Status of Animals" are from symposia on that subject which were presented at the Pacific Division meetings of the Society for the Study of Ethics and Animals, held in Los Angeles, California, in March, ...

A reductio is a philosophical attempt to prove an opponent wrong by showing that his/her position leads to an absurdity. Suppose someone wanted to argue that animals have rights, and that it is our obligation to prevent animal suffering. To perform a reductio, you would, for example, argue that this view requires us to lock up wolves that maul sheep, to punish cats that eat mice, and to tum our national parks into climate controlled comfort zones. When it works, a reductio is a marvelous philosophical tool; you can destroy your opponent's position while demonstrating your own subtlety and cleverness.