Online research in philosophy

In an effort to restrict seed piracy, Monsanto intends to implement some variation of genetic use restriction technology (GURT). Regarding such intentions, many activist groups throughout the world (mainly in the US, Canada, and the UK) adamantly contend that Monsanto and possibly other multinational agrochemical corporations (MACs) will be acting immorally if GURTs, such as Terminator Technology (TT), are implemented in the global agricultural industry. These activists argue that the potential implementation of TT is immoral because it will grant Monsanto (...) the power to wrongfully exploit resource-poor farmers (RPFs) by reducing RPFs to mere means of production. I contend that Monsanto will not necessarily be wrongfully exploiting RPFs through the implementation of TT. More specifically, as long as Monsanto allows these RPFs to make an autonomous choice to use terminator seeds and sponsors public plant breeding initiatives (PPBIs), then Monsanto cannot be accurately considered to be wrongfully exploiting these farmers. There are three main parts to this essay. In the first part, I explain what exploitation is and the conditions that must obtain for it to be immoral from a Kantian perspective. In the second part, I briefly describe a few of the major objections that some activist groups have made regarding the potential implementation of TT. In the third part of this essay, I apply the conception of wrongful exploitation developed below to the current debate concerning the potential implementation of TT in the global agricultural industry. (shrink)

In an effort to restrict seed piracy in the global agricultural market, Monsanto intends to implement some form of genetic use restriction technology (GURT). Regarding such intentions, many activist groups adamantly contend that Monsanto will be acting immorally if GURTs, specifically Terminator Technology (TT), are implemented in the global agricultural market. They argue that the potential implementation of TT is immoral because it threatens to infringe upon the rights of resource-poor farmers (mainly in developing countries) by denying them the ability (...) to save the seed derived from their harvests. While there may be ways that the implementation of TT can be construed as wrong, I narrowly argue that Monsanto will not be wrongfully infringing upon the basic rights of resource-poor farmers if it actually implements TT. Moreover, as long as Monsanto takes the appropriate measures to minimize the possible negative effects that TT may have on resource-poor farmers, and allows these farmers to make an autonomous choice to use seed that contains this technology, Monsanto’s possible implementation of TT cannot be accurately considered to instantiate an immoral violation of basic rights. (shrink)

After providing a brief history of global climate change, we consider and reject the influential position that free markets and responsive democracies relieve corporations of obligations to protect the environment. Five main objections to the free market view are presented, focusing in particular on the roles of business organizations in the transportation and electricity generation sectors. Ethically grounded management and public policy recommendations are offered.

he current debate concerning genetically modified (GM) crops is primarily focused on the negative consequences that the production and consumption of GM foods could have on people and the environment. Adding to the list of concerns is the multinational agrochemical corporations' plan to implement GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) to prohibit the unauthorized use of certain genetically modified plant varieties. Several activist groups perceive the potential implementation of GURTs to be a threat to resource-poor farmers since this technology (which the (...) activists call Terminator Technology) may be used to wrongfully exploit resource-poor farmers in the name of economic gain. In this thesis, I argue that multinational agrochemical corporations will not necessarily be infringing upon the rights of resource-poor farmers nor with they be wrongfully exploiting such farmers through the implementation of GURTs. Given that the primary targets for implementing GURTs are currently modified plant varieties, and most resource-poor farmers are unable to afford GM seeds, multinational agrochemical corporations will not have the opportunity to form a relation with these farmers and therefore would not be able to use them as a mere means to maximizing seed industry profits. I conclude that the implementation of GURTs may be construed as immoral on some grounds, but it is not wrongfully exploitative. (shrink)