David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (2):191-210 (2005)
Many people object to genetically engineerehd (GE) food because they believe that it is unnatural or that its creation amounts to playing God. These objections are often referred to as intrinsic objections, and they have been widely criticized in the agricultural bioethics literature as being unsound, incompatible with modern science, religious, inchoate, and based on emotion instead of reason. Many of their critics also argue that even if these objections did have some merit as ethicalobjections, their quasi-religious nature means that they are entirely irrelevant when interpreted aspolitical objections regarding what public policy ought to be. In this paper, we argue that this widespread view is false. Intrinsic objections have much more political import than has previously been recognized, and indeed the requirements of political liberalism and its associated idea of liberal neutrality, once properly understood, protect intrinsic objections from many of the most common objections. That is, policy-makers may not legitimately base public policy on grounds that are inconsistent with intrinsic objections, even when they believe those objections to be flawed in the ways mentioned above. This means that in the context of a political debate about GE food, the discussion should not center on the substantive merits of the intrinsic objections themselves but rather on the appropriate political norms for achieving democratically legitimate policy on issues that touch people’s deepest religious and moral beliefs.
|Keywords||ethics genetically engineered food genetically modified food GM food intrinsic objections liberal neutrality playing God political liberalism unnaturalness yuck factor|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Helena Siipi & Susanne Uusitalo (2011). Consumer Autonomy and Availability of Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2):147-163.
Henrik Mielby, Peter Sandøe & Jesper Lassen (2013). Multiple Aspects of Unnaturalness: Are Cisgenic Crops Perceived as Being More Natural and More Acceptable Than Transgenic Crops? [REVIEW] Agriculture and Human Values 30 (3):471-480.
Similar books and articles
Andrew S. Eshleman (2005). Can an Atheist Believe in God? Religious Studies 41 (2):183 - 199.
Andrew Eshleman (2005). Can an Atheist Believe in God? Religious Studies 41 (2):183 - 199.
Noah Lemos (2010). Summation, Variety, and Indeterminate Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):33 - 44.
Brian Weatherson (2001). Intrinsic Properties and Combinatorial Principles. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):365-380.
M. Weber (2005). Compassion and Pity: An Evaluation of Nussbaum's Analysis and Defense. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (5):487 - 511.
J. McKitrick (2003). A Case for Extrinsic Dispositions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):155 – 174.
Assya Pascalev (2003). You Are What You Eat: Genetically Modified Foods, Integrity, and Society. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (6):583-594.
Christopher J. Preston (1998). Epistemology and Intrinsic Values: Norton and Callicott's Critiques of Rolston. Environmental Ethics 20 (4):409-428.
Stuart Rachels (2000). Is Unpleasantness Intrinsic to Unpleasant Experiences? Philosophical Studies 99 (2):187-210.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #130,170 of 1,096,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #144,939 of 1,096,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?