Ethics of Food - Research Paper Example

Ethics of Food The development of human civilization is largely connected to the development of technology. Indeed, from the very dawn of the society, people were trying to find ways to cope with the problems that they had to face on a daily basis. Thus, over centuries one of the most nagging problems for the world was lack of food. In spite of the fact at the present moment there are also regions that experience hunger, but in the majority of the countries, especially in the developed ones, people not only have the abundance of food, but they also think about the ethical aspect of consuming it. This paper will present several principles of the Food Ethics, possible criticism for this approach as well as refutation of it. First of all, it would be highly important to provide a general perspective on the issue. Thus, one would not make a mistake pointing out that among the food that people consume there are certain groups of products that are different from others. For example, if pigs have been domesticated from numerous centuries and the production of their meat has been developed in great detail, there are some animals which are also consumed, but their meat or other parts of the body have been introduced to the people relatively recently. In addition to that, some meat might come from the animals the population of which is far less than the one of pigs or cows. Finally, the development of the science has brought up a new category of food which consists of Genetically Modified Organisms. So, the primary question focuses on the idea whether people have a moral duty to support certain food. Since the above mentioned question lies in the realm of Ethics, it would be logical to use several Ethical Theories than are relevant in this case. The first approach that is able to provide an answer to this problem is the Kantian Ethics. Thus, according to it, people should be considered to be responsible for the preserving of the wildlife as well as fragile ecosystems around the world and, therefore, they should never consume flesh of the animals that are endangered. In addition to that, since food that is made of Genetically Modified Organisms might be harmful to the bodies of the people, it should not be introduced to the market in any form. However, a completely different approach is presented by the Utilitarian Ethics. Indeed, it argues that there is no problem in eating meat of the endangered animals or the meat that was produced in a cruel way as long as it pleases the people and they are able to cope with the consequences of it. For example, it may be permissible to consume meat of rare animals as long as the scientists will be able to restore its population in the future. As for the used of Genetically Modified Organisms, the negative impact that they are able to have on the body of a person is still a matter of debate; so, those who are willing to take the risk should be allowed to do so (Freedman). Having examined the possible solutions to the problem in question, it would be advantageous to turn to concretization of the problem, namely viewing some of the examples of it in great detail. First of all, the issue deals with the process of production of meat as the majority of the developed countries have cuisines that rely on different meals with meat. It would not be an exaggeration to point out that the people all over the world should pay more attention to the way the animals the flesh of which they consumed are killed, preferring those companies who do it in a sustainable way and rejecting those who do it in a cruel way. In addition to that, the practices of ritual killing, such as halal, should be restricted to the countries where it was traditionally spread. As for the consumption of meat of the endangered animals, there might be a simple answer: keeping in mind that science is not able to affect the wildlife effectively and it may be rather difficult to restore the population of a particular species, it is highly advisable to refrain for this practice. Indeed, if people think that in the distant future the population will come to normal and continue killing a particular animal, there might be a situation when then number of animals will be too small to ensure successful reproduction. In other words, people who stop consuming flesh of the endangered species until it is too late. Another point that should be brought up is the use of Genetically Modified Organisms. As of now, the factories are required to mark their products as those which contain or do not contain GMO. However, this can hardly be called an effective solution to that problem. Thus, the introduction of this kind of organism might seem as a way to cope with the food crisis that the world is currently experiencing, but it may also spawn another crisis that would affect the humanity even more. In other words, if there is even a slightest possibility that eating Genetically Modified Organisms might be harmful to the people, they should be banned until the technology of their production is not refined to the best possible level. After a detailed examination of the issue on concrete examples, one should articulate the three rules that would guide the Ethics of Food. The first of them might be formulated in the following way: the humanity should consume food that does not harm organism of a person. In spite of the fact that this might appear to be too obvious, this simple rule excludes the use of Genetically Modified Organisms at least until the science will be able to tell with a hundred percent certainty that they are not dangerous. In addition to that, this rule may also put an end to consuming such gourmet food as fugu: the peculiarity of it lies in the fact that every year there is a number of people who are poisoned by it. The second rule in the Ethics of Food that is advocated by this paper focuses on the idea that companies that produce food should adhere to the certain standards making sure that those are not able to comply with them will not enter the market. This is particularly important to keep in mind as this will help to put companies that are reported to kill animals cruelly out of business. Leaving aside the spiritual dimension of the discussion, it is beyond any doubts that humans as more developed creatures should be responsible for the well ware of the animals and are not allowed to treat them cruelly even if the latter were bred to be killed. There is another rule that should be articulated as it holds important implications for the Ethics of Food. Thus, according to it, while producing the food, the mankind should think about the future as well as future generations. In spite of the fact that this postulate might seem too broad, it is still able to regulate the production of food effectively. For example, it out rule out the consumption of the flesh of the endangered animals as this might lead to their potential extinction and, consequentially, the future generations will not be able to enjoy the same biodiversity as the people today. This put different limits on the practices that are implemented all over the world, significantly changing the approach of the people towards the food production. It would not be a mistake to point out that the adherence to the above mentioned rules might result in the emergence of the system according to which the food will be divided in the two levels. On the one level, there will be products that are produced from the organisms that are not endangered and might be considered sustainable to a certain extent. Indeed, there are no worries about the population of pigs or cows. In spite of the fact that they also might be affected by various diseases, they meat may be consumed without any risk of negatively affecting biodiversity. On the other hand, there will be a level that will consist of the organisms that are endangered or the introduction of which into the diet should be restricted because of a certain reason. Finally, it might be quite suitable to analyze the possible criticism that might arise due to the discussion of the proposed Ethics of Food. Thus, the opponents are likely to say that the division between the organism that may or may not be consumed is not based on a logical explanation and limits experience that a person might gain. They might also point out that the above mentioned rules are too vague and leave a broad space for interpretation, like the second rule which does not specifically mentions the standards, but has clearly defined sanctions for those companies which are not able to comply with them. There is not doubt that the claims that are made by the critics are valid to a certain extent. However, there are several points which they tend to forget. To begin with, the introduction of the two level system of food is based on a common sense: in spite of the fact that people are able to eat flesh of different organisms on this planet, if this process is not controlled it will most certainly lead to a disaster which can be easily avoided if the people implement the proposed rules and adhere to hem. Secondly, the rules are deliberately designed to be vague as this makes them universal and suitable for an infinite number of situations which does not allows those who are not willing to comply with them use a particular provision and bend the law. As one can easily see, the consumption of food might be easily regulated by different Ethical rules. Thus, the first of them puts emphasis on the effect that the food has on the body of a person, namely it should not bring any negative consequences. In the broad perspective, this rule is dedicated to eliminate the use of products the impact of which is a subject of debates. Secondly, there is a need for different standards that would guide the performance of the companies that produce food so that those would are not able to deliver the produce of the required quality or in the acceptable manner would be pushed out of the business. Finally, the mankind should think about the future generations. Works cited Freedman, David H. "The Truth about Genetically Modified Food." Scientific American Global. 20 Aug. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. . Read More