Building a Sustainable Future for Animal Agriculture: An Environmental Virtue Ethic of Care Approach within the Philosophy of Technology

Articles

Abstract

Agricultural technologies are non-neutral and ethical challenges are posed by these technologies themselves. The technologies we use or endorse are embedded with values and norms and reflect the shape of our moral character. They can literally make us better or worse consumers and/or people. Looking back, when the world’s developed nations welcomed and steadily embraced industrialization as the dominant paradigm for agriculture a half century or so ago, they inadvertently championed a philosophy of technology that promotes an insular human-centricism, despite its laudable intent to ensure food security and advance human flourishing. The dominant philosophy of technology has also seeded particular ethical consequences that plague the well-being of human beings, the planet, and farmed animals. After revisiting some fundamental questions regarding the complex ways in which technology as agent shapes our lives and choices and relegates food and farmed constituents into technological artifacts or commodities, I argue that we should accord an environmental virtue ethic of care—understood as caretaking—a central place in developing a more conscientious philosophy of technology that aims at sustainability, fairness, and humaneness in animal agriculture. While technology shapes society, it also is socially shaped and an environmental virtue ethic of care (EVEC) as an alternative design philosophy has the tools to help us take a much overdue inventory of ourselves and our relationships with the nonhuman world. It can help us to expose the ways in which technology hinders critical reflection of its capacity to alter communities and values, to come to terms with why we may be, in general, disengaged from critical ethical analysis of contemporary agriculture and to consider the moral shape and trajectory and the sustainability of our food production systems going into the future. I end by outlining particular virtues associated with the ethic of care discussed here and consider some likely implications for consumers and industry technocrats as they relate to farming animals.

Keywords

Ethic of care Animal ethics Philosophy of technology Environmental virtue theory Commodification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to the editors of this journal, anonymous reviews, learned colleagues at an Iowa State University Bioethics Program workshop who offered invaluable initial feedback, and Tom Buller for his sage insights and suggestions.

References

  1. Adams, C. (2000). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory tenth anniversary addition. NY: Continuum Publishers Co.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, P. (1999). Reweaving the food safety net: Mediating entitlement and entrepreneurship. Agriculture and Human Values, 16, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beekman, V. (2008). Consumer rights to informed choice on the food market. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, W. (1996). The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, W. (2009). Bringing it to the table: On farming and food. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.Google Scholar
  6. Bittman, M. (2009). Food matters: A conscious guide to eating. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borgmann, A. (2006). Feenberg and the reform of technology. In T. Veak (Ed.), Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology (pp. 101–111). NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Casey, R., & Lugar, R. (2008). A call for a strategic US approach to the global food crisis: A report of the CSIS task force on the global food crisis—core findings and recommendations. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Coff, C. (2006). The taste for ethics: An ethic of food consumption. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, D. E. (1998). Intervention, humility and animal integrity. In A. Holland & A. Johnson (Eds.), Animal biotechnology and ethics (pp. 145–155). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology (pp. 75–99). NY: Routledge, KY.Google Scholar
  14. Feenberg, A. (2003). Democratic rationalization. In E. Einston & R. Edelbach (Eds.), Society, ethics and technology (pp. 100–114). Canada: Thomson and Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2006). ‘Livestock a major threat to environment.’ Retrieved June 2008 from http://www.fao.org/newsroom/eb/news/2006/1000448/index.html.
  16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture 2009: Towards a Responsible Livestock Future. Rome.Google Scholar
  17. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (n.d.) (2008). FAO Satistical Database. Retrieved January 2008 from http://faostat.fao.org.
  18. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser, D. (2001). Farm animal production: Changing agriculture in a changing culture. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser, D., & Weary, D. (2004). Quality of life for farm animals: linking science, ethics, and animal welfare. In G. J. Benson & B. E. Rollin (Eds.), The well-being of farm animals: Challenges and solutions (pp. 39–60). NY: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haynes, R. P. (2008). Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and ethical implications. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays, trans. New York: William Lovitt, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  23. Hunkel, H. O. (2000). Human issues in animal agriculture. College Station: Texas A & M Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ilea, R. C. (2009). Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1991). Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1992). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Little, P. (1988). Simone weil: Waiting on truth. NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  28. McDonald, M. (2001). Canadian governance of health research involving human subjects: Is anybody minding the store? Health Law Journal, 9, 1–21.Google Scholar
  29. Midgley, M. (1983). Animals and why they matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  30. Newton, L. (2003). Ethics and sustainability: Sustainable development and the moral life. NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Nussbaum, M. (2004). Beyond “compassion and humanity”: Justice for nonhuman animals. In C. Sunstein & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: Current debates and new directions (pp. 299–320). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Sandoe, P. (Eds.). (2007). Ethics, hunger and globalization. In search for appropriate policies. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Pollan, M. (2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  34. Poppendieck, J. (1997). The USA: Hunger in the land of the plenty. In G. Riches (Ed.), First world hunger: Food security and welfare politics. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  35. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Regan, T. (1991). Defending animal rights. Urbana, USA: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rollin, B. (1995). Farm animal welfare: Social, bioethical, and research issues. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sandler, R. (2007). Character and environment: A virtue-oriented approach to environmental ethics. NY: Columbia Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sandler, R., & Cafaro, P. (Eds.). (2005). Environmental virtue ethics. UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Simple is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  41. Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation revised edition. NY: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. USA: Rodale Inc.-Holtzbrinck Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
  44. Stump, D. (2006). Rethinking modernity as the construction of technological systems. In T. Veak (Ed.), Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology (pp. 3–18). NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  45. Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmer’s and Consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, P. B. (1993). Animals in the agrarian ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, P. B. (2001). Reshaping conventional agriculture: A North American perspective. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson, P. B. (2006). Commodification and secondary rationalization. In T. Veak (Ed.), Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology (pp. 112–135). NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, P. B. (2008). The ethics of intensification: Agricultural development and cultural change (The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries. NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Veak, T. (Ed.). (2006). Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  52. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in the age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Alaska AnchorageAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations