Abstract
Utilitarian ethics provides a model for evaluating moral responsibility in agricultural research decisions according to the balance of costs and benefits accruing to the public at large. Given the traditions and special requirements of agricultural research planning, utilitarian theory is well adapted to serve as a starting point for evaluating these decisions, but utilitarianism has defects that are well documented in the philosophical literature. Criticisms of research decisions in agricultural mechanization and biotechnology correspond to documented defects in utilitarian theory. Research administrators can expect that application of a utilitarian standard ignoring these deficiencies will become the occasion for predictable attacks by critics. Administrators who are sensitive to the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarian ethics are equipped to make a better allocation of research effort.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, Martin. 1985. “Ecological consequences: Reducing the uncertainties,”Issues in Science and Technology 1(3):57–68.
Batie, Sandra S. 1984. “Soil conservation policy for the future.”The farm and food system in transition: Emerging policy issues, No. 23. Lansing, MI: Cooperative State Extension Service, Michigan State University.
Brandt, Jon A., and Ben C. French. 1983. “Mechanical harvesting and the California tomato industry.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65:265–272.
Copp, David. 1985. “Morality, reason and management science: The rationale of cost-benefit analysis.”Social Philosophy and Policy 2:129–151.
Doyle, Jack. 1986.Altered harvest. New York: Viking/Penguin Books.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977.Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Griffen, James. 1982. “Modern Utilitarianism,”Revue Internationale de Philosophie 141:131–175.
Hadwiger, Don F. 1982.The politics of agricultural research. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Hess, Charles E. 1984. “Freedom of inquiry—an endangered species.” Presentation to the Division of Agriculture, National Association of State and Land Grant Universities, Denver, CO, 13 November 1984.
Hightower, Jim. 1977.Eat your heart out. New York: Crown Publishers.
Hightower, Jim. 1978.Hard tomatoes, hard times. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.
Kaldor, Donald R. 1971. “Social returns to research and the objectives of public research.”Resource allocation in agricultural development edited by W. L. Fischer. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.
Kalter, Robert J. 1985. “The new biotech agriculture: Unforeseen consequences.”Issues in Science and Technology 2(1):125–133.
Kloppenburg, Jack, Jr. 1984. “The social impacts of biogenetic technology in agriculture: past and future.”The social consequences and challenges of new agricultural technologies edited by G. M. Berardi and C. C. Geisler. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Machan, Tibor. 1984. “Pollution and political theory.”Earthbound, edited by T. Regan. New York: Random House.
MacIntyre, Alisdair. 1977. “Utilitarianism and cost-benefit analysis.”Values in the electric power industry edited by K. Sayre. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Madden, J. Patrick. 1984 “Regenerative Agriculture: Beyond organic and sustainable food production.”The farm and food system in transition: emerging policy issues, No. 33. East Lansing, MI: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University.
Madden, J. Patrick. 1986. “Beyond conventional economics—An examination of the values implicit in the neoclassical economic paradigm as applied to the evaluation of agricultural research.”New directions for agriculture and agricultural research edited by K. Dahlberg. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Martin, Phillip L., and Alan L. Olmstead. 1985. “The agricultural mechanization controversy.”Science 227:601–606.
Mill, John Stuart. [1861] 1979.Utilitarianism edited by G. Sher. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Rawls, John. 1972.A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rasmussen, Wayne D. 1968. “Advances in American agriculture: The mechanical tomato harvester as a case study.”Technology and Culture 9:531–543.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1966.Distributive justice. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Publishers.
Rifkin, Jeremy. 1985.Declaration of a heretic. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Ruttan, Vernon W. 1982.Agricultural research policy. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.
Sagoff, Mark. 1984. “Ethics and economics and environmental law.”Earthbound edited by T. Regan. New York: Random House.
Sagoff, Mark. 1986. “Values and Preferences.”Ethics 96:301–316.
Schmitz, Andrew, and David Seckler. 1970. “Mechanized agriculture and social welfare: The case of the mechanical tomato harvester.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52:569–577.
Schumacher, E. F. 1972.Small is beautiful. New York: Harper and Row.
Thompson, O. E., and F. Scheuring. 1984. “From lug boxes to electronics: A study of California tomato growers and sorting crews, 1977.”The social consequences and challenges of new agricultural technologies edited G. M. Berardi and C. C. Geisler. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Tweeten, Luther. 1984. “Food for people and profit: Ethics and Capitalism.”The farm and food system in transition: Emerging policy issues, No. East Lansing, MI: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thompson, P.B. Ethics in agricultural research. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1, 11–20 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02014459
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02014459