| We
can define ethics as the logical pursuit of justifications for our
actions. As a discipline, ethics provides for us a set of guiding
principles against which actions can be evaluated. With respect to
agricultural biotechnology we might ask: Should scientists use the
tools of modern agricultural biotechnology (e.g., recombinant DNA
techniques that are more commonly known as genetic engineering) to
create new plants that might, for example, resist pests or produce
medicines? Is there a justification for pursuing such technologies?
 As
a philosophical discipline ethical thought can take on many forms.
The two most commonly used ethical paradigms are consequentialist
reasoning and rights-based ethics. Rights-based ethics embrace a
biocentric worldview based on the contention that each species (and
the individuals comprising a species) have intrinsic rights that
should not be violated. Actions that maintain intrinsic rights are
ethical; actions that violate species' or individuals' rights are
deemed as unethical.
In contrast to rights-based ethics, consequentialist reasoning
- drawing upon utilitarian philosophy -justifies actions by balancing
cost and benefit. Thus, actions are evaluated in terms of outcomes
or consequences, with an emphasis on promoting the greatest good
for the greatest number of affected parties. (Note that consequentialism
is distinct from relativism which justifies actions based solely
on intentions or motives. Consequentialism also incorporates motive,
but only as one component of the larger equation.) A consequentialist
approach might ask: Do the beneficial outcomes outweigh the risks?
If so, actions are ethically justified; implementing technologies
in which benefits do not outweigh potential risks is construed as
unethical behavior.
When considering the ethical justification for developing and implementing
agricultural biotechnologies, we must ask ourselves some basic questions.
First, are there any absolute norms, rules, or dictates that we
must respect or defend? If we believe that a set of absolutes does
exist, then our evaluation of actions takes us down the path of
rights-based ethics. The obvious challenge is: how do we know if
there are any absolutes? Most ethicists and theologians believe
that there is more certainty in general norms than in their particular
applications.
In the absence of a compelling argument that there exists a set
of absolute intrinsic rights (or that we can know such absolutes,
should they exist), actions can be evaluated from a consequentialist
perspective. It has been suggested that this ethical paradigm pairs
well with science in general, because consequentialism applies quantitative
analyses. Consequentialist ethics, however, is not  without
its problems, in particular with respect to the ethical justification
for agricultural biotechnology. Here we need to ask ourselves, can
we measure all of the potential benefits and costs of a given technology
(or set of technologies)? And more importantly, can we accurately
measure these benefits and costs? To the extent that it may be impossible
to measure all of the benefits and costs, with a prescribed degree
of accuracy, consequentialist ethics can fail as cost/benefit ratios
may not accurately reflect the true (or total) outcomes of a given
technology.
The above discussion highlights a couple of salient points. First,
ethical paradigms such as consequentialism and rights-based philosophy
can provide us with logical tools to debate the justification of
agricultural biotechnologies. However, with the strengths of these
paradigms come challenges and limitations as well. Thus, while ethical
paradigms provide us with a framework for philosophical discussion,
they seldom provide unanimous answers to ultimate questions about
what is right and what is wrong.
Click here to dive
deeper into bioethics, or click on "A Question of Purpose"...
|
