David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):797-812 (2012)
Abstract This paper argues that in modern (agro)biotechnology, (un)naturalness as an argument contributed to a stalemate in public debate about innovative technologies. Naturalness in this is often placed opposite to human disruption. It also often serves as a label that shapes moral acceptance or rejection of agricultural innovative technologies. The cause of this lies in the use of nature as a closed, static reference to naturalness, while in fact “nature” is an open and dynamic concept with many different meanings. We propose an approach for a dynamic framework that permits an integrative use of naturalness in debate, by connecting three sorts of meaning that return regularly in the arguments brought forward in debate; cultural, technological, and ecological. We present these as aspects of nature that are always present in the argument of naturalness. The approach proposes a dynamic relation between these aspects, formed by gradients of naturalness, which in turn are related to ethical concerns. In this way we come to an overview that makes it possible to give individual arguments a relative place and that does justice to the temporality of the concept of nature and the underlying ethical concerns stakeholders have in respect to innovation in agriculture. Content Type Journal Article Category Articles Pages 1-16 DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9359-6 Authors P. F. Van Haperen, Wageningen University and Research Centre, META, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands B. Gremmen, Wageningen University and Research Centre, META, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands J. Jacobs, Wageningen University and Research Centre, META, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands Journal Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Online ISSN 1573-322X Print ISSN 1187-7863.
|Keywords||Naturalness Biotechnology Genomics Agriculture Public debate Ethical values|
|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
Martin Calkins (2002). How Casuistry and Virtue Ethics Might Break the Ideological Stalemate Troubling Agricultural Biotechnology. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (3):305-330.
Yann Devos, Pieter Maeseele, Dirk Reheul, Linda Van Speybroeck & Danny De Waele (2008). Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (1):29-61.
John Dupré (2004). Understanding Contemporary Genomics. Perspectives on Science 12 (3):320-338.
Francis Fukuyama (2002). [Book Review] Our Posthuman Future, Consequences of the Biotechnological Revolution. [REVIEW] Hastings Center Report 32 (6):39-40.
Nicole C. Karafyllis (2003). Renewable Resources and the Idea of Nature – What has Biotechnology Got to Do with It? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (1):3-28.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
P. F. Haperen, B. Gremmen & J. Jacobs (2012). Reconstruction of the Ethical Debate on Naturalness in Discussions About Plant-Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):797-812.
Michiel Korthals (2012). Emotions, Truths and Meanings Regarding Cattle: Should We Eat Meat? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (4):625-629.
Helena Siipi (2004). Naturalness in Biological Conservation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):457-477.
Ben Ridder (2007). An Exploration of the Value of Naturalness and Wild Nature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):195-213.
Erik de Bakker & Hans Dagevos (2012). Reducing Meat Consumption in Today's Consumer Society: Questioning the Citizen-Consumer Gap. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):877-894.
Hub Zwart (2009). Biotechnology and Naturalness in the Genomics Era: Plotting a Timetable for the Biotechnology Debate. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):505-529.
Helena Siipi (2008). Dimensions of Naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 71-103.
Henk Verhoog, Mirjam Matze, Edith Lammerts van Bueren & Ton Baars (2003). The Role of the Concept of the Natural (Naturalness) in Organic Farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (1):29-49.
Theodore Sider (1993). Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Douglas Seale (2012). Wes Jackson: Consulting the Genius of the Place: An Ecological Approach to a New Agriculture. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (2):253-260.
Douglas Edwards (2013). Naturalness, Representation and the Metaphysics of Truth. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (3):384-401.
Mickey Gjerris (2011). From the Guest Editors. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):305-307.
Franck Meijboom & Frans Brom (2012). Ethics and Sustainability: Guest or Guide? On Sustainability as a Moral Ideal. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (2):117-121.
Charles Francis (2013). H. Wittman, A. Desmarais, and N. Wiebe (Eds.): Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (1):305-307.
Neelke Doorn (2013). Peter G. Brown and Jeremy J. Smith (Eds): Water Ethics: Foundational Readings for Students and Professionals. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (3):723-725.
Added to index2011-11-29
Total downloads11 ( #132,630 of 1,096,754 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #73,973 of 1,096,754 )
How can I increase my downloads?