Environmental Ethics
Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m5lq9FHDo
This is a chapter of The Corporation, on You Tube, "Case Histories"
Read: An Overview of Fruit and Vegetable Standards Relating to Cosmetic Appearance and Pesticides
Note:
The readings on Environmental Ethics for this Conference take two very different approaches to the issues.
First Approach
The first set of readings, in the schedule, concern the thesis that nature and animals, the environment and the ecosystems have value in themselves, and that we have obligations to preserve and protect them, regardless of the benefits accruing to human beings of such protection.
Interspersed with these arguments is a different but connected argument: That we must, as moral beings, consider the broader, long range impact of environmental change, especially damage, wrought by us, on our society, on the human community, and on future generations.
These are very different theses but they connect in several ways, to each other and to what we have been discussing as fundamental to business ethics, in a number of ways:
1. The first point is most controversial; many may balk at the idea that businesses and people ought to consider the interests of fish or beautiful vistas as ethically more important than the well-being of humans. But if we accept the second point, we may find that principles are derived which effectively realize the first, for example: To ravage the earth through unsustainable production that extracts more than it leaves is to deprive future generations of these resources, in ways that are unfair and detrimental.
2. If this connection is present, and generally true, then perhaps the best way to fulfill our obligations to broader humanity and future generations is to adopt the values contained in the first statement. This will, it might be argued, more certainly assure realizing the values present in the second statement.
3. Now we have considered the theory of Utilitarianism, both Act utilitarianism, which would have us do “cost-benefit” analyses for every decision; and Rule Utilitarianism, which would have us adopt rules that, if adopted, would maximize overall human happiness, even if this is not done in every single decision governed by the rules. The question is: Is there any reason not to consider societal goods, the well-being of persons of other nations, and future persons in such a Rule Utilitarian calculus? If not, then the two statements, above, and a rational and defensible Business Ethics as we have been studying this, are not wholly incompatible.
SECOND APPROACH
The reading that is especially connected with this Conference is very different. It raises the very complex set of issues of government regulation of agricultural products, when
1. Standards of purity are imposed by government,
2. Which can best be met by the use of pesticides that may have adverse effects on the health of consumers and on the ecosystem in which the produce is grown;
3. Industry needs to maximize production, perhaps send produce for long distances to market, and realize reasonable profits—and meet government mandated purity requirements—may require the use of pesticides which, again, adversely affect human health and agricultural ecosystems. This is also tied centrally to the need for aesthetically pleasing characteristics of produce, which are best assured by the use of pesticides and other chemicals, to consumer purchase of the produce.
Questions for Discussion:
In light of the arguments and concerns raised in the First Approach (readings), and the matters raised in the FDA piece, discuss the ethical issues facing agricultural businesses—corporate and family owned—raised by the purported “need” to use pesticides in the growing of produce.
When and why would you argue that the use of pesticides is ethically permissible?
When and why would you argue that the use of pesticides is ethically impermissible?