Discussions of the desirability and ethical justifiability of sustainable agriculture are frequently impeded, if not derailed by the variety of meanings attached to the term “sustainable.” This paper suggests a taxonomy of different notions of sustainability distinguishing between agricultural product and process sustainability, in both static and dynamic forms, pursued by reductive (extractive), compensatory, regenerative, and induced homeostasis strategies. The discussion then goes on to argue that ethics demand sustainable agriculture. Finally the paper tries to identify just which types of (...) sustainable agriculture will meet the ethical demands. I conclude with reasons for living sustainably in the present, as opposed to trying to orient agriculture by reference to the rights of future generations. (shrink)

Agriculture is changing around the world. The most dramatic of these changes, however, threaten the very ability of humanity to produce the food needed to sustain itself. Although more is now produced on less land and with less human effort, some farming methods deteriorate our resources to such an extent that the productive life of many important agricultural areas can be numbered, not in centuries, but in decades. Although all view this situation with alarm, few agree on practical solutions to (...) it. Social revisionists recommend stringent reform of those political and economic policies that allegedly created the crisis. At the opposite extreme, others adhere to the belief that economic forces, unfettered by unrealistic social and bureaucratic constraints, ought to be allowed to reshape agriculture in a manner most favorable to humanity's long-term well-being. Between these views is a wide range of stands on ethical issues in agricultural production and on the values of rural community life. Ethics and Agriculture is the first comprehensive anthology of multidisciplinary readings on the ethical questions confronting agriculture today. It sets these issues in context with an introduction to the ethical traditions that structure the discussion. (shrink)

Some exchanges of reasons are agonistic. Others work mutually, as in planning and adjusting divergent understanding. Mutual argumentation subconsciously yields judgment that integrates and clarifies a common vision coordinating interrelated lives. It harmonizes agents sharing a space of action and understanding. Pierre Bourdieu held that such thought generates and expresses culture, patterning a logic that reflexively constrains itself. This discussion examines Bourdieu’s views as an analysis of mutual argumentation.

In this paper I compare and contrast Rawls’s notion of reflective equilibrium with Wellman‘s notion of conductive argument. In the course of so doing I will address two key questions: Are conduc-tive argument and reflective equilibrium best understood as modes of reasoning or types of argument? and What relationship, if any, is there between them?

This paper proposes to test the ethical acceptability of four styles of agricultural resource management: (1) contemporary industrial integrated systems agriculture, (2) modern industrial input dependent agriculture, (3) continuous traditional agriculture and (4) non-continuous (or swidden) traditional agriculture. The test of ethical acceptability is whether or not these styles of agricultural resource management embrace or are even compatible with that pattern of practical reasoning and interaction among ethical agents which we have independent theoretic grounds for preferring. The preferred sorts of (...) practical reasoning and interaction are those which we find operating in ethical theories which are strongly committed to letting the discretion of ethical agents construct what is right for them to do. Thus the discussion distinguishes several different strengths of constructivist ethics relating them to the work of John Rawls, Immanuel Kant and Onora O'Neill. Then it argues for the theoretic preferability of one particular strength of constructivist ethic. The paper winds up by arguing that only traditional continuous agriculture embodies the preferred sort of practical reasoning and interaction among ethical agents. Further, I argue that this is the only style of agriculture which can embody such reasoning and patterns of interaction. Thus, as we consider the role of agriculture in our plans of international development, we have one reason to try to favor traditional continuous agriculture. To do otherwise would ignore the ethical superiority of the practical reasoning and patterns of interaction of traditional agriculturalists. (shrink)