Global food security/GFS101/Ethics and choices: skills for tackling global food security/What are the grounds of ethics within global food security?
By now you should have some questions about how the global food production system is organised. One important structural observation is that this interconnected system is largely decentralised making it very dynamic and complex. Its decentralised nature means that it is very easy for justice issues to surface not just in developing countries but also in developed. An example of a food justice issue in the developed world is the increasing prevalence of food deserts. These are places usually where, while fast food may be plentiful, it is increasingly difficult to source fresh healthy food at an affordable price.
So what is food justice all about?
The following short video provides a succinct explanation of what those involved in the food justice movement are aiming for.
Source: Food Justice Movement explanation. Courtesy of The Audiopedia published on 8 Feb 2018. Licenced under Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Reproduced without alteration.
Hopefully what is beginning to become clear is that food as a tradable commodity, competition, profit-making, technological efficiency, and standardisation, and are strong structural forces within the global food production system. These forces can be presented either as an opportunity or barrier to ensuring food security. For example, some of the opportunities clearly rest in the role that a globalised system with its potential for technological innovation and knowledge exchange has in producing more and more food at economies of scale helping to reduce the cost of food. Proponents here would further add that efficiencies that result can reduce natural resource use and the impact of resource constraints on production. Another opportunity often highlighted is that such a system allows consumers the choice to access food from anywhere, at any time, at a price they want satisfying their food preferences and tastes. That is, through the global food system we have created the possibility of privilege to choose tonight to have vindaloo curry, tomorrow green Tia curry, and the next day we may just get take away Mexican or a meal deal at Macdonalds. So why should we care when we have created such a system of diversity and abundance.
Critique of the current organisation of the global food system unusually focuses on the social inequalities and injustices it creates and impacts it has on ecological systems. One major line of argument in critiquing the current organisation of the global food system is that such a system prevents food from being evenly distributed and exacerbates the global food security challenge. Often highlighted are the vulnerable and poverty-stricken within the developing world who are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood and who struggle to compete with big agribusiness in penetrating and deriving benefit from the global food system. Also outlined is how farmers walk a type of technological treadmill whereby to compete they try to increase production through the adoption of new technologies, infrastructure, and machinery; incurring debt in the process. Increased output leads crop price to fall, however, locked into their investment and with a want to see a return, farmers continue to increase production to the point where to remain competitive they have no other choice but to externalise costs on to communities, society and or the environment. Examples include impacts of industrialised agriculture on food sovereignty, human health, animal welfare, natural resources, biodiversity, and climate change.
Underlying these types of arguments are a whole bunch of assumptions.
In the next lecture Rob sheds light on these from a philosophical and ethical perspective.
Topic: What are the grounds of ethics within global food security?
****REPLACE VIDEO CONTENT - XBR103Week3Video1EDITED*****
After watching the previous lecture .....
Thinking about who the 'other' in food ethics is and answer the following question 1. In food ethics should human's be ranked above (a) all animals and (b) all plants, (Why/Why not)? Please direct your self to the Discussion Board titled: Activity 5: Who is the other in food ethics? so that other students can engage with your response. Feel free to comment on other posts as it will help you with your own thinking..
After you have done the activity above have a listen to some of the answers from other students.
Topic: Who are the others in food security?
If we take a utilitarian view of food ethics, 'others' are considered in so far as a greater good is achieved. This might be reduced hunger, suffering, poverty, environmental impact or increased flourishing, food production etc or other some such goal. The most important thing, however, is the total utility of a particular decision. However, if some of these ends result in a tradeoff one is still left with the moral dilemma about which ends are more valuable. Treating others as pure means towards ends, not only assumes that individual utility can be measured and summed but also gives way to the predominance of valuing things in terms of their use value, or that which is extrinsic to the things being valued. These things can then be commodified (ie.treating the thing as an object of trade) and by abstracting its use value through a universal equivalent such as money, the thing can then be traded on the capitalist market. On the other hand, if we take a Kantian perspective, the means are just as important as the end. Here, 'others' however defined, are often bestowed with certain rights and as such a deserving of a certain moral duty. In treating 'others' as ends in themselves this perspective is sympathetic to certain intrinsic values that are particular to and inhere within the 'other' and which can not be simply traded in terms of use value. That is the abstraction of the 'other' into a universal equivalent is limited by its intrinsic value and in turn, its non-commensurability.
It is important to note that a Kantian and utilitarian can still arrive at similar outcomes in terms of decisions over food ethics. For example, a utilitarian interested in reducing suffering, and which includes animals in their account of the 'other' would be able to mount an argument for the prohibition of Concentrated Animal Feed Operations, provided it results in the total sum of suffering across all others in comparison to no prohibition. However, an animal rights activist may mount their argument on the basis of appreciating the intrinsic value of animals to be free from suffering. In either case, the outcome can be the same, albeit through the deployment of different moral reasoning.
We hope now you can understand a little bit more about the complexity of food ethics and the different grounds from which different arguments are constructed. It highlights the complex task of weighing means and ends, rights and utility, intrinsic and extrinsic values, and the particularity of different lives lived and the generalisations we can make about them in decisions over food security.
After watching the previous lecture .....
Have a listen to Rob's lecture then think about the following questions:
1. What are the values and virtues that you hold to be important and why?
2. Do wealthy countries and individuals have a responsibility to help the hungry? Why?
I'd encourage you to RESPECTFULLY challenge each other in your ideas and get used to listening and changing, or sticking to, your opinions. Please direct your self to the Discussion Board titled: Activity 6: Values and Ethics so that other students can engage with your response. Feel free to comment on other posts as it will help you with your own thinking.
