Ray - comments on your seven questions below
Robert.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>; Robert Vint <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03 March 1999 16:51
Subject: Re: Britain Pushes the Panic Button on Biotech Foods


|Good morning folks,
|
|On 2/28/99, I said in part:
|
|Perhaps I don't understand properly, but it seems to me that one does not
|need to specify a "godhead" to see the need to construct an ethical
|framework in society and thus to identify ethical issues.  But I am not an
|ethicist.  Do you mind expanding here?
|
|To which on 3/1/99, Steven Bissel responded:
|
|I think Robert used the concept that if evolution was "directed" and
|"purposefull"  then to alter evolution was sinful (my words, not his). A
|plan presupposes a planner, or director or something. I used the lower case
|"godhead" because of my own agnosticism. Personnaly I don't think that even
|if there is a god, she is directing anything. Which goes back to my
original
|question about any fundemental issues with GM. You may be close with your
|"irreversable" arguement, but what can be done, can be undone. So I suspect
|that geneticists will say that "if" GM turns out to be a problem, they can
|fix it. Assuming that, do you see any ethical problems still?
|
|Ray here;
|
|Yes, because, if GM can jump fences, the damage is already done.  Others
may
|still see issues even with hybrids, for example the reduction of family
|farmers to status as serfs to the corporation via tie to particular
|chemicals.
|--------------------------
|
|Robert Vint, on 32/99 responded in part:
|
|>
|>RV Comment.
|>I don't take this theological position myself, but note it for interest.
|>What I do believe is that evolution is purposive and teleological in the
|>sense that species and ecosystems are clearly behaving over time in ways
|>that will maximise their chances of survival.  The evolutionary process in
|
|Ray (general comments):
|
|A problem I have with ethical discussion on such issues as GM, or any
other,
|is that our positions seem very subjective.  I'm wondering if ethicists
have
|"ground rules" similar to those presumed in science?
|
|That is, for example, how do they deal with the following questions (from
my
|ignorance):
|
|1.   Are there a number of "schools" (hypotheses?) among ethicists as to
the
|basis for making ethical judgements and for identifying issues that have
|ethical conflict content?
|Can someone identify them?  Or is there some other analagous methodical
|approach?

RV: Yes, there are; there is Utilitarianism -the duty to do that which
results in the greatest good for the greatest number; Rights Theory - which
states that individuals have inalienable rights which must be respected
whatever the cost; Absolutism - whereby there are totally fixed rules which
can never be broken (eg Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transplants even to
save lives).  Naturally all these theories conflict.
There are Environmental Ethics schools derived from these, but they are not
very clear cut: One is the Land Ethic, articulated by Aldo Leopold in his "A
Sand County Almanac" (1949) and analysed in J Baird Callicott's "A Companion
to A Sand County Almanac". [Leopold: "A thing is right when it tends to
preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is
wrong when it tends otherwise". There is a strictly anthropocentric
utilitarianism that treats nature purely as a useful resource with a
monetary value and which advocates environmental decision making through
cost-benefit analysis - most Governments cling to this position with a
religious fervour.  There is the animal rights/animal liberation position
and there are theological positions based on the concept of Stewardship
and/or Reverence for Life.  A good reader covering several of these is
"People, Penguins and Plastic Trees: Basic Issues in Environmental Ethics"
(Donald VanDeVeer, Christine Pierce) Pub: Wadsworth, California 1986.
|
|2.   What types of methods are common among ethicists to test these
|hypotheses (I'll call them for want of more education :-) )?  Or are there
|any?
|
RV: How about Reductio Ad Absurdum - looking at extreme cases - e.g. if you
believe in the total sanctity of all life does that mean you never breathe
for fear of swallowing and killing microbes?

|3.    What data are considered in testing hypotheses?

RV: They can be tested theoretically, ie with imaginary data
|
|4.    What criteria are established for using one vs another hypothesis for
|application to particular issues, such as GM?

RV: None - other than weeding out the ones that are logically contradictory.
|
|5. Or does it matter?  Do the several schools come to essentially the same
|conclusions about the ethical conclusions about issues?

RV: Sometimes, sometimes not.  We certainly don't seem to agree on abortion,
nuclear power or the Vietnam War.
|
|6.    I understand that there are ethicists who support "risk-benefit"
|approach to policy issues.  Is that right? If so, on what grounds?, what
are
|the pros and cons of such approach among ethicists? Alternatives?

RV: If I can save 100 lives by risking one then there seems to be a strong
case for doing it - the benefits outweigh the risks.
But if the costs and benefits are not comparable then how do I decide - how
does the cost to a bull of dying in a bullfight compare with the benefit in
apparent pleasure to the many thousands of spectators?
Alternatives: See Q1 above.
|
|7.  Or are these questions irrelevant - the wrong questions?
|
|I would benefit from discussion of these points and direction to other
|points/considerations that should be held in mind.
|
|But, maybe I'm asking too much for a discussion list; maybe I need to go
|back to school :-).  Or steal someone's reading list!
|
|Agnostically and Sincerely,
|Ray  ([log in to unmask])
|          P.O. Box 698, Micanopy, FL  USA  32667
|
|
|



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%