A Simple Value-Distinction Approach Aids Transparency in Farm Animal Welfare Debate

Public debate on acceptable farm animal husbandry suffers from a confusion of tongues. To clarify positions of various stakeholder groups in their joint search for acceptable solutions, the concept of animal welfare was split up into three notions: no suffering, respect for intrinsic value, and non-appalling appearance of animals. This strategy was based on the hypothesis that multi-stakeholder solutions should be based on shared values rather than on compromises. The usefulness of such an artificial value distinction strategy was tested in a small series of experiments. The results demonstrate that the chosen concept to distinguish between values is effective in a stakeholder context. Farmers’ views on doing good to animals appeared to be largely based on their value to prevent suffering and predominantly focused on the provision of regular care. Their priority for this value is clearly shared with other stakeholders, providing a basis for joint solutions. The concept of intrinsic value does not play a discernable role in farmers’ considerations. Based on the varying views on welfare, it can be inferred that there is a gradual rather than a principal difference between government legislation and farmers’ values, whereas public perception and acceptance of farm practices remains complicated. Distinction between value groups and focusing on a selected notion (such as no suffering) proved to be effective in bringing representatives of stakeholder groups together, but is unlikely to bridge the emotional gap between commercial farm practices and public ideals.     

“The Moral Difference between Intragenic and Transgenic Modification of Plants”

Public policy on the development and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has mainly been concerned with defining proper strategies of risk management. However, surveys and focus group interviews show that although lay people are concerned with risks, they also emphasize that genetic modification is ethically questionable in itself. Many people feel that this technology “tampers with nature” in an unacceptable manner. This is often identified as an objection to the crossing of species borders in producing transgenic organisms. Most scientists reject these opinions as based on insufficient knowledge about biotechnology, the concept of species, and nature in general. Some recent projects of genetic modification aim to accommodate the above mentioned concerns by altering the expression of endogenous genes rather than introducing genes from other species. There can be good scientific reasons for this approach, in addition to strategic reasons related to greater public acceptability. But are there also moral reasons for choosing intragenic rather than transgenic modification? I suggest three interrelated moral reasons for giving priority to intragenic modification. First, we should respect the opinions of lay people even when their view is contrary to scientific consensus; they express an alternative world-view, not scientific ignorance. Second, staying within species borders by strengthening endogenous traits reduces the risks and scientific uncertainty. Third, we should show respect for nature as a complex system of laws and interconnections that we cannot fully control. The main moral reason for intragenic modification, in our view, is the need to respect the “otherness” of nature.     

Stewardship of Natural Resources: Definition, Ethical and Practical Aspects

Stewardship is potentially a usefulconcept in modernizing management philosophies. Use ofthe term has increased markedly in recent years, yetthe term is used loosely and rarely defined in landmanagement literature. The connections between thispractical usage and the ethical basis of stewardshipare currently poorly developed. The followingdefinition is proposed: ``Stewardship is theresponsible use (including conservation) of naturalresources in a way that takes full and balancedaccount of the interests of society, futuregenerations, and other species, as well as of privateneeds, and accepts significant answerability tosociety.' A religious interpretation would require thephrase ``and ultimately to God' to be added.Stewardship has both secular and religiousinterpretations and it will be desirable to developboth of these aspects in parallel. A task forphilosophers is to establish whether the ethical basisof stewardship is sufficient to address environmentalconcerns or whether it is necessary to embrace widerethical approaches. Stewardship occupies similarground to several other concepts of use and managementof resources, particularly sustainability. It canbuild on sustainability by encouraging a broader viewof who and what should benefit from managementactivity. In particular, it focuses attention on therole of managers in providing public benefit and onenvisaging other species as a form of ``stakeholder' inmanagement decisions. Stewardship is applicable acrossthe widest range of fields of resource use and alsohas relevance to aspects of land tenure and propertyrights. Application of stewardship will require someadjustments in the roles of private managers/ownersvis-à-vis government. It might providemanagers with an expanded role and, importantly, amore positive image, both of themselves and in theeyes of the public. Stewardship could alsobe developed in a way that has relevance to citizensin general (as opposed to managers and owners ofresources), through their interactions with naturalresources as consumers.     

In and Of the World? Christian Theological Anthropology and Environmental Ethics

Mainstream currents within Christianity havelong insisted that humans, among all creatures, areneither fully identified with their physical bodiesnor fully at home on earth. This essay outlines theparticular characteristics of Christian notions ofhuman nature and the implications of this separationfor environmental ethics. It then examines recentefforts to correct some damaging aspects oftraditional Christian understandings of humanity'splace in nature, especially the notions of physicalembodiment and human embeddedment in earth. Theprimary goal of the essay is not to offer acomprehensive evaluation of Christian thinking aboutnature but rather to identify theological anthropologyas a crucial dimension of, and problem for, Christianenvironmental ethics.     

What's the Moral of the GM Food Story?

This paper is an attempt to examine issues and problemsraised by agricultural biotechnology by drawing on the richnessof contemporary ideas in ethical theory and thereby contribute tothe project of establishing new approaches to these problems. Thefundamental argument is that many of the negative aspects ofagricultural biotechnology are generated at the level of theunderlying conceptual frameworks that shape the technology'sinternal modes of organization, rather than the unintendedeffects of the application of an inherently benevolent set oftechniques. If ``food ethics' is to address the adverse impacts ofagricultural biotechnology, it must ultimately challenge theseconceptual frames, which, I argue, emerge from Enlightenment,liberal, political, and economic theory.The translation of traditional bioethics (focusing on principlessuch as autonomy and rights, justice, and well being) into foodethics does not produce the critical tools that are ableadequately to challenge the harmful legacy of Enlightenmentthinking. What is needed are reorientations of ethics that arecapable of formulating concepts and approaches that to someextent break with the presuppositions that underpin biotechnologyat its foundation. This paper suggests that narrative andfeminist critiques of medical bioethics are a good place to startin this project.     

可持续发展战略和环境伦理学产生过程的共同性研究

本文通过对可持续发展战略和环境伦理学产生过程的比较 ,提出可持续发展战略和环境伦理学在理论上的一致性和实践中的共同性以及二者之间的相互影响。并指出深入研究二者之间相互影响对实践的指导意义     

安全伦理与安全生产——解析安全伦理命题,制定“道德的”安全生产激励政策

从分析社会发展对安全伦理命题的关注和中国安全生产问题所引发的道德问题入手,指明安全伦理命题对社会经济政治发展的正面作用;依据道德选择和道德评价时所诉诸的安全伦理原则,区分"道德的"和"不道德的"两种安全生产伦理范式,并在该基础上提出一个制定"道德的"安全生产激励政策的选择方案:建立国家工业事故预防的伦理战略和伦理指导制度;制定"公平的"、"合理的"安全资源分配政策;制定中小企业的"道德的"安全生产管理战略;建立安全活动领域的防腐败机制,维护社会正义;从"人权"道德规范出发,创立新的安全生产规范。     

Justice in sustainability indicators and indexes

At least since the Brundtland Report, technical assessments of what can be sustained and values about what is desirable to sustain, for whom, and for how long have been intertwined. This intersection is particularly evident in the assumption that justice among people living today and between present and future generations is a key part of sustainability. In official international policy documents and academic studies of sustainability, this justice may include the equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, distributive justice, or the ability of people to meaningfully contribute to decisions that affect their lives, participatory justice. Yet, the process of developing indicators and indexes to track movement toward or away from sustainability has been dominated by technical, economic, and environmental assessments. This raises questions about whether or not indexes align with and thus will monitor and encourage progress toward sustainability in a technically possible and desirable way. To begin to answer this question, this paper identifies definitions of justice used in sustainability discourse and evaluates the degree to which sustainability indicators and indexes align with these concepts. The 2010 Environmental Performance Index, Eurostat's Sustainable Development Indicators, and a group of local indicators and indexes are examined. It is found that the indicators embody various aspects of justice, though they are still significantly limited by the available data, especially as they generally cannot monitor inequities between subpopulations and have a limited capacity to monitor progress toward participatory justice.     

It is all about the bottom line: Group bottom-line mentality,psychological safety,and group creativity

We examine bottom-line mentality (BLM) at the group level and examine the effect of group BLM on group psychological safety and subsequent group creativity. We draw on goal shielding theory to suggest that groups high in BLM narrowly focus on bottom-line outcomes, which encourages them to eliminate distracting considerations from their work processes. Because the group's high BLM encapsulates goal shielding, these groups are deficient in fostering psychological safety as an important interpersonal process that facilitates group creativity. We also couple goal shielding theory with arguments related to situational strength to examine group BLM agreement (i.e., the standard deviation of the mean of group BLM) as a first stage moderator. We contend that high-BLM agreement (vs. low agreement) strengthens the goal shielding effect of group BLM, which is reflected by a stronger detrimental effect on group psychological safety that then reduces group creativity. We found support for our theoretical model using multisource, multiwave field data from a diverse sample of workgroups and their supervisors. We discuss the theoretical implications of our research and provide practical suggestions for limiting the deleterious consequences of group BLMs in the workplace.     

Conservation as Virtue: a Scientific and Social Process for Conservation Ethics

Abstract:  Most scientists take ethical arguments for conservation as given and focus on scientific or economic questions. Although nature conservation is often considered a just cause, it is given little further consideration. A lack of attention to ethical theory raises serious concerns for how conservation scientists conceive and practice ethics. I contrast two common ways scientists approach ethics, as demonstrated in the writings of Stephen Jay Gould and E. O. Wilson. Gould casts severe doubt as to whether any ethics are possible from science, whereas Wilson proposes science as the only path to ethics. I argue these two methods ultimately limit popular support for conservation and offer Alasdair MacIntyre's "virtue ethics" as an alternative. Unlike Gould and Wilson, MacIntyre provides an ethical theory that reconciles scientific inquiry and social traditions. Recent studies of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States affirm MacIntyre's claims and provide important insights for conservation today. These accounts argue that social solidarity and political success against segregation were possible only as rooted in the particular language, logic, and practices of a robust cultural tradition. If correct, conservation science should attend to several questions. On what basis can conservation achieve widespread cultural legitimacy? What are the particular social currencies for a conservation ethic? What role does science play in such a scheme? MacIntyre's careful positioning of scientific and social traditions provides a hopeful ethical direction for conservation.