This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Agriculture and Human Values: Past, present, and future directions
Richard P. Haynes
In the last issue of 1996, I announced that Kluwer Academic Publishers would start publishing Agriculture and Human Values with the ﬁrst issue of 1997. With that announcement I described brieﬂy the interdisciplinary curriculum development initiatives that eventually led to the founding of this journal, which was ﬁrst published as a newsletter (1984), and to the formation of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society three years later. Since the current number is the premier issue of Kluwer’s publication of Agriculture and Human Values, I thought that it would be appropriate for me to reﬂect once more on the journal’s origins, what it has accomplished during the thirteen years that it was published by Agriculture and Human Values Inc., what its present scope is, and what its future plans are. My ﬁnal comments will focus on what the journal’s publication by Kluwer Academic Publishers will mean for future readers, authors, and subscribers.
Background of the journal The ﬁrst issue of Agriculture and Human Values was published as a newsletter in the Winter of 1984. It featured ﬁve articles that attempted to identify some of the major agricultural policy issues, reviews of four books that preﬁgured the emerging agricultural issues for the 1980s and beyond, a report on the National Dissemination Conference: Food/Agriculture in the Liberal Arts that was held at the University of Florida in early January 1984, a list of bibliographies of American agricultural history, and an annotated bibliography of ﬁlms on food and agriculture. In my editorial, I extended the following invitation. Readers are invited to submit essays, book reviews, announcements, course syllabi, bibliographies, or brief discussions. Letters are welcome! The topics should be of general interest to a broad range of readers in the liberal arts and the agricultural disciplines, and written, so far as possible, for the general reader. Although the principal focus of this and early subsequent issues was on supporting the development of a broader, interdisciplinary curriculum in the areas where the agricultural and liberal arts disciplines should interface, we were also concerned with deﬁning new areas of scholarship and with promoting research in these areas by provid-
ing a forum for its publication. It was this second concern that led us to change our format from a newsletter focused mainly on curriculum development to a journal devoted to the publication of ‘cutting edge’ scholarship on agricultural/food issues. What was lacking, for the most part, in current scholarship on these issues was (1) an investigation of the limitations of economic assessments of agricultural policy based on production efﬁciency goals, (2) input from a broader range of the social sciences besides agricultural economics, (3) the distinctive perspective that the humanities have to offer, (4) attempts to bridge the continued separation of production from consumption issues and (5) efforts to bring a concern for ‘externalities’ from the area of marginal discourse into mainstream thinking. As a philosopher, I saw this lack as a failure on the part of the academic community to take greater responsibility for deﬁning the moral imperatives of their disciplines as well as a failure of public policy to take responsibility for the social costs borne at the expense of a signiﬁcant sector of society in order to promote the interests of another sector. So my original conceptualization of the new area of research and scholarship that I wanted to help promote was on the model of professional ethics, conceived of as an area of applied philosophical ethics. In other words, I thought of this new area of research as Agricultural Ethics, so I helped organize two exploratory conferences in 1982 to try to deﬁne the ethical issues that this new area should attempt to address (Haynes & Lanier 1982). The Center for Values at the University of Delaware had undertaken a similar effort the year before, except that their chief focus was Ethical Issues in Agribusiness, an extension of a ﬁeld of applied ethics, Business Ethics, that was rapidly emerging at that time, to the agricultural sector. However, I became increasingly persuaded that it would be a mistake to focus exclusively on the model of professional ethics or of business ethics for two reasons. One reason was that much of the work done by professional philosophers in the area of applied ethics used what I call the ‘moral dilemmas approach’ to ethical issues. The moral dilemmas approach places the professional within the context of their workplace environment and shows that the basic moral principles to which that professional is (should be) committed must come into a seemingly irresolvable conﬂict in certain situations. These are ethical
a nutritionist (K. These ﬁve articles make some important claims. HAYNES dilemmas just because one must choose between two ethical principles which to compromise. Technology. In considering long-term goals for agriculture. we have cast our net widely to include contributions and perspectives from an increasingly broad spectrum of disciplines. In other words. ‘Human nutrition. Perkins. I said in my editorial: Agricultural policy in the USA for the last decade has been largely ad hoc. Over the last ten years. a political scientist (D. To reﬂect this broader conception of the new ﬁeld of research that we wanted to help promote. ‘Agricultural ethics. and partly to emphasize our belief that agricultural practices reﬂect value choices. However. Inadequate thought has been given to long-term planning. and then seeks to apply this theory to the cases at hand in order to justify some choice. One strategy we have employed to draw in contributors from new disciplines has been to invite guest editors from various disciplines to develop a special issue of the journal on some important topic. the moral dilemmas approach was not radical enough for my taste. There have been obstacles to achieving both of these goals. to many at least. What is objectionable about this approach. including the humanities. an animal scientist and Dean of a College of Agriculture (H.2 RICHARD P. Hadwiger. ‘Value conﬂicts in agriculture’). experts. The emerging ﬁeld and its issues The theme of the ﬁrst number of Agriculture and Human Values (Winter 1984) was ‘Agricultural policy issues’. and John H. Axinn & R. To date we have published special. agriculture. The applied philosopher. The ﬁve articles were written by two sociologists (L. and these choices should be critically examined rather than uncritically assumed. Aiken. And they cannot be solved without the input from many different disciplines.O. and human value’). partly to reﬂect our sympathy with the approach taken by the publication Science. 1983. we should not let the agricultural sub-government do all of our thinking for us. and they frequently involve conﬂicts of value and conﬂicts of interest. Agrarianism and the American philosophical tradition (P. Questions about agricultural policy raise ethical considerations of a serious nature. 1982). One of my major roles as editor of this ﬂedgling journal for the next several years was to promote the type of scholarship that addressing these issues required and to encourage those currently engaged in it to submit articles to an as yet unknown forum that had not yet acquired a reputation as an academically respected journal known for its high standards of scholarship. both from within and outside of the traditional colleges of agriculture. and the distorted view of their own history that disciplinary texts promoted. Getting more disciplines involved and more dialogue going on was clearly needed. and that philosophers working in the area of ethics were right in exposing the limitations of this distinction and in arguing for a rational basis for ethical decision making. ‘Agricultural policy: Issues for the 1980s and beyond’). the notion of ethics implies an idea of individual responsibility that ignores the structural problems that deﬁne the contexts in which individuals make choices and that limits the autonomy of individual actors. These issues cannot be adequately addressed without understanding the settings in which they arise. I thought that although both the physical and the social sciences were unduly cynical in accepting the historic distinction between facts and values. its merits judged and rewarded. We should all be grateful to the scholars already working in these areas who graciously contributed their time and effort to support the development of Agriculture and Human Values by contributing essays to help deﬁne this ﬁeld of inquiry. Busch & W. and the insecticide crisis: The quest for new pest management strategies. including the humanities. What it does not propose is an analysis of alternative practices that might avoid such conﬂicts altogether. is that it assumes as backdrop. and without dialogue. Herisse). Kunkel. I also became persuaded that the relatively newly emerging ﬁeld of the social studies of knowledge (of science and technology) was starting to reveal both the background value commitments of the various sciences. guest edited issues on the following topics: Accountability and collaboration in international development (G. and Human Values. the legitimacy of the institutions and their current practices that deﬁne the contexts in which such conﬂicts arise. seeks to deﬁne some moral theory that justiﬁes ranking ethical principles as to their priority when they come into conﬂict. and the politics of research. the setting’) and a philosopher (W. Plenum. Science. and its goals rather uncritically assumed. agriculture. Insects. ‘Issues in agriculture’). too few researchers representing only a small number of disciplines were currently providing interdisciplinary input to the issues mentioned above. The chief obstacle has been the way that research is organized by disciplines. Lacy. The second reason that I wanted to avoid focusing exclusively on ethical issues is that. The issues are complex. again. Two of the books reviewed in the ﬁrst number of Agriculture and Human Values identify some of the problems with the way research is organized and rewarded and its major paradigms uncritically accepted (Lawrence Busch & William B. . on this model. Westview Press. in my view. we chose to refer to it as ‘agriculture and human values’ instead of ‘agricultural ethics’. Clancy. Lacy. Thompson). and orientations. We should also be grateful for their vision.
that a discussion piece focused on criticizing another piece of research is not a serious contribution to scholarship. Lapping & H. Fonte). Agriculture in the USA: Its impact on ethnic and other minority groups. Herring). Part of the reason for this. of raising intra-disciplinary value issues. Rural economic development (M. The idea seems to be that if a piece of research has passed peer review and published in a respectable journal of that discipline. Schor). The continuing challenge of hunger (K. Building on local agricultural knowledge. Although a signiﬁcant degree of progress has been made in challenging the bifurcation of discourse into facts and values. By contrast. Animal health technologies and the Third World (M. Women and agriculture (N. All of these special issues have served the dual purpose of involving contributors from previously unrepresented disciplines. I suspect. Kate Clancy’s Presidential address to the Agriculture. Clancy. in spite of our commitment to raising and addressing value issues. that often marginalized perspectives be acknowledged. Development pressures and ecological constraints: The deltaic forests of India and Bangladesh (R. Bonanno). Biotechnologies and agriculture: Technical evolution or revolution (P. Low-input sustainable agriculture in Cuba (J. ‘Participation and empowerment’ in sustainable rural development (L. Warren). Five numbers of the journal featured selected revised papers from conferences or workshops organized around some special theme. The human ecology of agricultural development: The ethics and rationale of international technical cooperation in agriculture and rural life (G. without guest editors. Carney). Alternative conceptions and models of sustainability. J. Replacing the disciplinary atomistic approach to the analysis of agricultural policy issues with the conceptual apparatus implied by thinking of these issues in terms of food systems is a step in this direction (Kloppenburg et al.EDITORIAL 3 Agriculture in Eastern Europe (A. as discussants hold. then it can be cited but not publicly criticized. Bye & M. Indigenous agricultural knowledge and development (M. Hays). Anachronisms or rising stars: The black land grant system in perspective (J. including a special number on each of the following: Agricultural biotechnology issues. such criticism is a fundamental practice of most of the humanities. Bonanno). Another obstacle that we have not made adequate progress in overcoming is the reluctance of those outside of the humanities to engage in a critical analysis of values. My original invitation to potential authors to engage previously published articles in critical discourse has gone largely ignored. is the publication practices of many of the sciences. This cannot be done unless disciplinary experts share their own perspectives with others in a relatively jargon free prose and are willing to engage their critics dialogically (Longino 1990. Agriculture and Human Values has contributed to this sort of dialogic discourse by requiring that authors’ prose be intelligible to those outside of the discipline of the author. The human dimensions of sustainability (J. and incorporating a greater variety of disciplinary perspectives on important issues that need to be addressed. It is all too common for our science contributors to treat values as facts about people’s subjective preferences rather than facts about what people believe to be worthwhile and hence subject to critical analysis. Several recurrent themes have emerged in the development of this new ﬁeld of inquiry. several obstacles remain that we have made less progress is overcoming during our thirteen years of publication. One theme has been the role that disciplinary autocracy (one version of technocracy) has played in limiting the effectiveness of democratically-based decision making. Axinn). 1993). Thrupp). or. They have also helped further the practice of disciplinary self-criticism. which precludes criticism of disciplinary-monitored and peer reviewed publications. In our annual society meetings. Although the above editorial policies have played an important role in overcoming some of the obstacles to creating a broader range of perspectives that are being taken into consideration in developing long range goals for agriculture. Other numbers focusing on special topics. Assessing the agricultural curriculum. Ethics and values in food safety regulation. and that value/policy issues or implications be addressed. nor about how to critically appraise our values and work toward the development of a system of values that can be shared by a larger community.A. there is not nearly enough discussion either about the values we. have also been published. and Human Values Society meetings in St Louis last year (which is forthcoming in the next issue of the journal) makes the plea for a greater commitment by the Society to incorporate such discussions. Powers). Poppendieck & J. Burkhardt). Newman). Agriculture and the social sciences. The crisis in European agriculture (A. Meltzer). Multi-cultural considerations from cropping to consumption (J. especially at a time when the larger society is lamenting the loss of community values and shared concern for the issue of justice. the ghost of the subjectivity of values and the objectivity of facts still seems to haunt us. An often proposed remedy is to develop institutions and practices that require otherwise marginalized perspectives to be given a hearing and taken seriously. Value issues in agricultural information (A. . One obstacle to developing more dialogue among disciplinary perspectives is the apparent reluctance of many disciplines within the sciences to engage in the sort of practice that is endemic to the discipline of philosophy: that is the practice of engaging previously published essays in critical discussion. 1993). Flora). Food. I believe that we have published less than half a dozen such pieces in spite of my repeated pleas for essays for our Discussion Department. Reisner & R. Jacobs).
Their ﬁndings. Thompson equates single issue thinking with the notion of ‘moral purity’. Their arguments have no standing and cannot be converted into policy by the agencies that have been established with limited mandates. Their analysis ‘examines initiators of speciﬁc issues within one large and encompassing policy domain in Congress. Those who do not share the basic assumptions or who rely on ordinary language rather than technical deﬁnitions of concepts are outsiders. it is our responsibility not only to make the connections clear. as concerned specialists. while assigning both realms to specialists. delays may occur in delivery of signiﬁcant social beneﬁts to the population as a whole. HAYNES Clancy’s plea to Society members is to work toward the development of a philosophy of agriculture that integrates the disparate activities that fragment our larger society’s population into interest groups. David E. Hedderley. Interest groups do not know how to serve their own interests responsibly because they do not experience the connectedness of their activities to the activities of other groups. especially the high rate of issue initiator success. Skalnik draw upon their analysis of the bST debate and the difference between the reaction of the state in the USA and in the EU to regulate its use to conclude that ‘lack of awareness among government ofﬁcials and the public at large serves as a signiﬁcant impediment to the adoption of new technologies. ‘Moral puriﬁcation proceeds by isolating the social. At stake are the prospects for democratizing the problem. animal. Smith. and human health impacts of biotechnology from each other in terms of discrete categories of moral signiﬁcance’. and conclude that although wider concerns of the public about the engineering of animal and human genetic material cannot be ignored. In the fourth paper. have been placed at the center of the leviathan. They examine what they call ‘the two-worlds view of Congress’. As educators. the system of puriﬁcation establishes a leviathan of science and government. In ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering’. In ‘Science policy and moral purity: The case of animal biotechnology’.deﬁnitions that guide R&D priorities. . Gerad Middendorf & Lawrence Busch ‘examine some of the important issues surrounding citizen participation in science and technology policy : : : and review and assess various institutional mechanisms for participation that have been implemented in diverse settings by institutions of science and technology’. It suggests instead that homestyle behavior comes to Washington politics in ways that expand signiﬁcantly the range of policy players’. Accordingly. agriculture’. we have tended to promote single issue thinking. Obviously. environmental. Providing information about the tangible beneﬁts and risks of the technology is more informative to respondents. J. ‘The bST debate: The relationship between awareness and acceptance of technological advances’. in the meantime. Therefore. ‘Initiating home-style issues in a postreform congress’. Robert Skalnik & Patricia C. In the third paper. the ﬁfth paper in this current number of Agriculture and Human Values. Paul B. the issue extends beyond bST’. Les Levidow & Susan Carr raise a similar concern in their paper. or if the technology is discussed in general terms rather than in terms of speciﬁc applications. but to offer up a vision of a less fragmented community that can be linked to the development of public policy. ‘rejection of genetic engineering is more likely if the application is focused on humans or animals’. authors Frewer. yet this issue becomes displaced and fragmented into various administrative controls. They do the research that will form the empirical basis for policy decisions. ‘How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary’. In the case of animal biotechnology. which draws a dichotomy between home work and Washington work. Instead. William P. and Shepherd examine overall patterns of objection to different applications of biotechnology. The basic assumptions that partition knowledge also partition government power. Paik challenge over simpliﬁed views about how policy gets developed by the US Congress. ‘call into serious question many existing assumptions about exclusivity and specialization in committee deliberations. ‘Inquiry for the public good: Democratic participation in agricultural research’. Scientists and scientiﬁc organizations. Moral puriﬁcation is an exclusionary strategy maintained alike by scientists and the regulatory bureaucracy that depends on them: Seen from one vantage point. Biotechnology embodies a contentious model of control over nature and society. Browne & Won K. in discussing how the state manages public criticism of the industrializing R&D carried out by public sector research: : : : the state separates ‘risk’ and ‘ethics’. They control the deﬁnitions that are used to translate regulatory mandates into operational terms. and this would seem to be the most effective route to the establishment of public discourse about the technology and its subsequent evolution. In the ﬁnal paper. They conclude by arguing ‘that a closer approximation of the “public good” can be achieved by encouraging the participation of the fullest range possible of constituents as an integral part of the process of setting research priorities’.4 The current number RICHARD P. Howard. The risk/ethics boundary encourages public deference to the expert assessments of both safety regulators and professional ethicists. Single issue thinking is lamented by the authors of two of the papers in the current number.
to an investigation of . ‘state of the ﬁeld’ reports. generally of article length. discussion pieces. Discussion pieces focus on one or more articles that have been previously published in Agriculture and Human Values in order to disagree with the analysis or the conclusions of its author(s). State of the ﬁeld reports. have frequently been organized through the efforts of a guest editor who originally suggests the special topic. devoted much of his scholarly efforts. the call will be reissued. The call for papers was published in the Fall 1995 issue with the deadline set for a year later. We have a commitment to continue to publish essays on normative issues in assessing conventional and alternative food production. and biological understanding of agriculture. Correa. including case studies. we publish a ‘books received’ list to announce books that publishers have sent us for review and to inform potential reviewers of what is available. and state of the ﬁeld reports are examples of the type of work that might be classiﬁeds as suitable for this section. Carlos M. education. in the past. on critical theory applied to agriculturally related topics. including topics on environmental values and on animal welfare. Since the original deadline for submissions has past without any applicants. would be published in this section. the social sciences. or curriculum development projects. The distinction between In the ﬁeld reports and articles is sometimes a subtle one. Contributions on a broad range of topics relating to the main journal theme are welcome. Agriculture and Human Values publishes articles. present. Literature reviews and limited annotated bibliographies. on the sociology of knowledge in the areas of agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values seeks to create educational and scholarly junctures among the humanities. when such projects are thought by the editors to hold a special interest for our readers. Potential reviewers are encouraged to scan current and back issue lists for books that they might wish to review. and Insect Sciences of the University of Wyoming is serving as guest editor of a special number on the theme. are reports designed to illuminate a set of issues in terms of a body of relevant literature without attempting to advocate some particular resolution or set of resolutions to those issues. and consumption systems. We published an article by Lockwood on this topic in the Winter 1996 issue of Agriculture and Human Values. and food systems. I will brieﬂy review the criteria we use for judging submissions and for determining what genre that we will assign them to. and participates in the review process and editing. but do not attempt to illuminate the practice in terms of a body of theoretical literature.EDITORIAL 5 The journal’s scope and its future directions As we have already indicated. and will most likely publish the special number as the Summer or Fall issue this year. and the agricultural disciplines. and agricultural development theory. on the application of science and technology studies to agriculture and food systems. Book review lengths vary from a page to several pages. and book reviews. In most issues of the journal. We extend a continuing invitation to prospective guest editors to suggest new topics for exploration and to discuss with us how to develop a special number of the journal on this topic. Book reviews on relevant books or groups of books are welcome. We have a considerable backlog of books that no one has offered to review. Reports commissioned by organizations on topics that are of special interest to our readers are especially welcome (see. but they should be addressed to a general academic readership while maintaining high standards of scholarship. 12. nutrition. and future’. Generally.nerdc. Department of Plant. In the ﬁeld reports describe current research. We will also continue to publish book reviews and reports and have not given up on our efforts to develop a discussion genre in our pages. Currently. marketing. for example. Joel Schor.edu). Book review essays that approach article length will be peer reviewed. food and nutrition studies. as an employee of the USDA. 4: 58–79). on social. The theme was announced as ‘The myriad faces of the USDA – Impacts past. social. helps develop a call for papers.uﬂ. papers that report on or make observations about some practice. on the philosophy of the applied agricultural sciences. The working deﬁnition of these categories follow: Articles must address one or more issues that have been raised in the relevant literature and be thought by its reviewers to make some signiﬁcant contribution to that body of literature toward a resolution of those issues. Soil. These special numbers. We are currently reviewing nine submissions for this special number. ‘in the ﬁeld’ reports. and on other value issues related to production and consumption systems. We will continue our practice of publishing special numbers devoted to the examination of some issue or set of issues. ‘Sovereign and property rights over plant genetic resources’. For the beneﬁt of readers who are not familiar with our past publication policies. ‘The ethics of biological control’. distribution. who died unexpectedly in the Spring of 1996. A call for papers for a memorial issue for Dr Joel Schor was published in our Winter 1966 issue. Professor Jeffrey Lockwood. Many of these books are signiﬁcant contributions to the literature in ﬁelds of interest common to our readership. We submit both types of papers to the review process (as we also do for discussion pieces). and then to contact the editor by e-mail to determine whether the book is still available for reviewing (e-mail: aghuval@ nervm. economic. and to promote an ethical.
It is more difﬁcult to inquire into the mental life of animals with whom we cannot (as easily) carry on such discussions. Several years ago (the Summer of 1991) we issued a call for papers for a special number on the theme ‘Improving the well-being of animals in agriculture’. Philosophical issues in animal welfare: Sketch of a topography 1. zoologists. sociological or political-economic analyses of the current or potential impacts of government-sponsored research on the broad spectrum of ‘affected parties’. and. For example. such as happiness. which is a branch of normative philosophy of science. Questions about how we conceptualize such states in humans are congregated under the heading philosophical (or moral) psychology. That special number never materialized.) How are these states related to ‘physical’ states? There is a long philosophical tradition in which it is typical to assume that individuals have some privileged access to their own mental (or psychological) life. which is the view that while it is appropriate to ascribe human states to non-humans. but have to work to ﬁnd out about that of others. being in pain. being dissatisﬁed. One question that is often asked when thinking about animal well-being concerns the extent to which it is appropriate to ascribe to non-human animals the same welfare states (or concepts) that we ascribe to humans. Moral psychology is concerned with understanding those psychological states that are constitutive of psychological well-being.6 RICHARD P. being unhappy. mainly the poor. the disenfranchised. Since such a topography might prove useful to those of our readers who are not entirely familiar with the domain that philosophers encircle as their own. wanting. Some have thought that we just know our own minds by direct inspection. animal scientists. minorities in food and ﬁber production. It is easy to argue that we have good evidence that other humans have a mental life. present. Philosophical inquiry tends to be conceptual (rather than empirical) though this is a relative distinction. Welfare states such as health or physical wellbeing. One of my goals is to reissue this call and to produce a special number on this topic within the next two years. Black. The new deadline for submissions is 1 December 1997. One position about what constitutes non-human animal welfare seems committed to the view that it is inappropriate to ascribe to non-human animals the same psychological states that we ascribe to humans. but have to infer what is going on in other minds. I have chosen to use my editorial prerogative to present a sketch of how this philosopher views the interelatedness of animal welfare issues. including the new biotechnologies. veterinarians. are less so than states that appear to involve some mental or psychological component. ethologists. descendants of former slaves in southern USA. so that we lack an understanding of what criteria we should employ in determining whether non-humans are capable of being in the conditions that we are concerned about. 2. Uncritically ascribing human states to non-humans is often referred to as anthropomorphism. Topics for this memorial issue will include historical studies of the effects of USDA policy/research activities on the many constituencies it has purported to serve since its inception in 1862. people often disagree about what constitutes animal well-being . and others interested in this topic. being happy. choosing. though not entirely uncontroversial. One of the major difﬁculties in resolving this question is that we often do not have a very clear conception of what these states consist of for humans. HAYNES the effects of USDA and land-grant research and extension on marginalized farmers. or future ‘missions’ and directions of USDA and land-grant system work. philosophy seems to be concerned with an identiﬁcation and examination of the basic assumptions of an area of inquiry or of a social practice. It is common currently for philosophers to subscribe to what they call critical anthropomorphism. Issues are important questions that are difﬁcult to resolve because people are divided as to which answers they favor (or which position they take) and there seems to be good reasons to support contending positions. we would want papers from philosophers. Some have held the position that we might not ever be sure that anyone but ourselves even have minds. because they have different conceptions of animal wellbeing. They include such notions as desire. As contributors. Philosophical psychology is concerned with the following kinds of general questions: How do we study and know about the ‘psychological’ states of humans? (This question is also addressed in the area of the philosophy of psychology. animal welfare issues offer an excellent example around which to sketch out a topography of the various departments of applied philosophy. preferring. or. What makes an issue a philosophical one? As a discipline. being satisﬁed. An issue is philosophical (or has a philosophical dimension) when there is disagreement about how it should be conceptualized. Philosophical and moral psychology. we should do so with a critical awareness about possible differences (Donnelley & Nolan 1990). this issue). because we can discuss that life with them. at least that we should be very skeptical about which human states we ascribe to non-human animals. since no submissions were received. special topics on those subjects Joel was committed to: the poor. critical or philosophical studies of the past. more generally. let alone non-humans. From the perspective of a philosopher interested in adopting Paul Thompson’s hybridization approach to ethical thinking (see ‘Science policy and moral purity: The case of animal biotechnology’.
and argue that while science does produce knowledge. Disputes about animal welfare sometimes have their roots in epistemological disagreements. Philosophical ethics is generally concerned with understanding the concepts and criteria we employ (or should employ) in engaging in ethical discourse. and what such interests are is these cases. Sometimes philosophers distinguish between descriptive epistemology. many of whom claim that their studies about what criteria scientists actually use in ﬁxing their beliefs and what environmental factors inﬂuence what these criteria shall be show a great discrepancy between the methodological or epistemological beliefs of the scientiﬁc community and the actual practices they employ. which is concerned with describing how people actually acquire what they consider to be a credible systems of beliefs. Philosophers often distinguish between character traits that are primarily self-regarding (that dispose the individual to promote their own long-term and enlightened interests) and those traits that are primarily other regarding. it is common to distinguish between normative and descriptive questions. As in epistemology. and respecting things. more generally. Epistemology or theory of knowledge. The question about how we can know whether others have a mental life similar to our own could be thought of as an epistemological question. Questions about what sort of knowledge science does produce are often congregated under the heading philosophy of science. what are the links between these areas of philosophical inquiry and ethics? 5. Good character requires that we have the right values and act in accord with them. what warrants our belief that over the centuries science has made intellec- tual progress? Or. are concerned with producing things. and if so.EDITORIAL 7 etc. Philosophers have tended to be more concerned with normative questions: What justiﬁes the claim that scientists often make that their methodologies produce a more credible set of beliefs? What methodologies should the various sciences commit themselves to in order to warrant such a claim? Or. Etymologically ‘ethics’ is the science (or technical knowledge) about how to acquire good character (or good habits). it is common to distinguish between descriptive and normative ethics. among other things. where other refers to others that are thought to have interests analogous to their own interests. Questions about what criteria we should use to sort out our beliefs or hypotheses in terms of the degree of credibility we should accord them are often congregated by philosophers under the heading epistemology. some philosophers have argued that we cannot know to what extent nonhuman animals are capable of being in such states since we don’t know anything (or much) about their mental life. Science proponents often consider the methodologies followed by the various sciences to be models for knowledge acquisition. Philosophy of science. Choices. or even whether they have one. Good character is the disposition to make good choices. or mental life. but this type of awareness is possible only if one has a self-concept. One important question is. Some philosophers have argued that all of these states imply an awareness of oneself as being the subject-of-a life. Often scientists or science proponents claim that science-based beliefs deserve more credibility than beliefs that are not science based. and so ethics is thought to be a branch of value theory. is clearly a question that needs to be addressed. which is concerned with identifying and justifying criteria for what is of value or what it valuable. To say that some other has moral considerability is to claim that this other has such interests. which entails having a sense of oneself as having lived in the past and wanting to extend that life into the future. Ethics. Whether this assumption is warranted in cases where the other seems to be radically different from oneself. Epistemology is concerned with ‘How we know’. The next step in this argument is to claim that without a language it is not possible to have any concepts at all. Character is sometimes deﬁned as a set of dispositions to make choices in choice-making situations. conserving things. what considerations should a person of good character give them?’ Moral theory is concerned with identifying the criteria that should be (or are) used to decide whether a type . Descriptive philosophy of science is done more frequently by historians and sociologists of science. and normative epistemology. or does science necessarily objectify what it studies (regard it as something that has properties that are of interest to the scientist). Finally. Since most of these seem to involve some form of psychic awareness. Critics sometimes call such a view scientism. What is scientiﬁc knowledge about? Is science objective (is it capable of disengaging itself from what it studies so that it can regard the object of study as it is in itself. then that would have serious import for science-based information about animal welfare. or what is good. 3. What values do the members of various groups actually share. 4. which is concerned with identifying the criteria that we should apply to any system of beliefs in order to warrant our claiming that it deserves credibility. and what values should they share if their values (their beliefs in what is a good state of affairs) are to be warranted or correct. This appears to be a claim based on a normative theory of knowledge. If science necessarily objectiﬁes what it studies. since the ability to employ concepts in thinking and the ability to use language are intimately connected. scientiﬁc knowledge is as circumscribed as any other type of knowledge production. Again. ‘Do non-human animals have moral considerability.
and ﬁeld tours. California. If the professional is an authority on the well-being of their patient and this authority is based on the claim that it has science-based information about the patient. 5–9 June. the Society holds its annual meetings in conjunction with the Association for the Study of Food and Society. I will remain as editor for the foreseeable future and there will be no change in editorial policy. and a several sentence Biosketch of each of the authors. and for 1999. University of Florida. 6. Gainesville. One ethical dilemma that DVMs must face is how to adjudicate conﬂicts between client-centered values and patient-centered values. have access to the Society’s e-mail bulletin board. HAYNES of being has moral considerability and determining what consideration such beings deserve under varying social situations. extension education. Food. Attendance ranges between 100 and 200 people and the atmosphere is friendly. Meetings for 1998 are planned for Toronto. Agriculture. and may attend the Society’s annual meetings at a reduced registration fee. The 1997 meetings will be held at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. For the past several years. How should individuals organize themselves socially.8 RICHARD P. some Key words (with a maximium of ﬁve). Food. book reviews or requests for books to review may be sent directly to the editor. the food sciences. The annual three-day meetings are attended by people from a variety of disciplines. A new publisher The current number is the ﬁrst issue of Agriculture and Human Values published by Kluwer Academic Publishers instead of Agriculture and Human Values. P. the humanities. and home economics. and Human Values Society history is available to Society members upon request to the Executive Secretary free of charge. Professional ethics is often regarded by philosophers as a branch of philosophical ethics applied to people who ﬁnd themselves in special positions of authority based on their claim to have authoritative knowledge about how to produce good conditions in or for others. they are sometimes resolved by denying that there is any conﬂict. Asilomar. Meetings include sessions in which papers are presented. which includes the cost of subscription to Agriculture and Human Values. Department of Philosophy. Food and Human Values Society. Box 118545. A copy of The Agriculture. What criteria should be used in deciding who is entitled to act in behalf of others because they are more informed about the well-being or interests of others and of the group? Contributors to the projected special number on ‘Improving the well-being of animals in agriculture’ should try to ﬁt their paper into the above framework or propose amending it to accommodate their contribution. the applied biological and agronomical sciences. including the social sciences. All private subscriptions will be handled through the ofﬁce of the Society’s Executive Secretary and are available only to Society members. Applications for membership should be directed to the Executive Secretary. resource development. nutritionist. But their patients are beings who have their own interests. FL 32611-8545. when it is lacking or present and how to produce or preserve it. psychology. In addition to a subscription to the journal. then the issue is whether science-based information is objective or objectifying. USA. Inc. . however. DVMs are supposed to have authoritative knowledge about animal welfare. and Human Values Society. FL 32611-8545. whose address will remain Deptment of Philosophy. University of Florida. Social and political philosophy.O. and Human Values Society is an organization of professionals dedicated to an open and free discussion of issues related to an understanding of the values that underlie alternative visions of the food and agricultural systems. Student participation is encouraged. poster sessions. USA. This denial is sometimes justiﬁed by arguing that the patient has no interests independently of those interests that the client has in the patient. nutrition education. intellectually stimulating. As professionals they are hired by clients to produce a client-centered value. Agriculture and Human Values will remain the ofﬁcial journal of the Agriculture. panel discussions. Box 118545. P. The current annual membership fee. is US$ 60. Except those of essay length. members receive the Society newsletter. and intimate.O. Florida. ecology. When such conﬂicts occur. What implications does having a new publisher have for the future of this journal? One implication was evident to you when you ﬁrst set eyes on the current number: A new cover design with the table of contents of the back cover instead of the front cover. and how should social groups reproduce their social knowledge in their young? What values should we try to develop in others when we help develop good character? One of the most important linking questions in this area concerns the notion of authority. It was founded in 1987. Food. Submissions must be accompanied by a diskette and must include an Abstract. and for at least the next several years. as well as the annual business meeting. agricultural communication. The Agriculture. Gainesville. informal. Manuscript submissions will now be made directly to Kluwer’s Journals Editorial Ofﬁce rather than to the editor’s ofﬁce in Gainesville. One of the major questions in this branch of philosophy concerns the relationship between individual and social welfare.
Essential tensions – Phase Two: Feminist.E. Ms Berendina van Straalen. The review process will be carried out through the Journals Editorial Ofﬁce. R. Princeton. Antony & C. Animals. Distribution Center. Haynes. Preferences will be given to Society members or to business of special interest to Society members. Boulder. May/June.W. Manuscript texts (double-spaced. in L.). K. .nl. P. & Nolan. Box 990 3300 AZ Dordrecht. Witt (eds. eds. Institutional subscriptions will be handled by Kluwer Academic Publishers. Agriculture and Human Values 13(3): 33–42. and ethics. A special supplement to The Hastings Center Report. & Lanier. Feminist essays on reason and objectivity (pp. (1990).E. Coming into the foodshed. (1982). S. G. and human values. Requests can be made by e-mail or fax either to Kluwer rights and permissions ofﬁcer. All announcements will be presented on two pages of the journal devoted exclusively to Society announcements. Requests for announcement space should be sent directly to the Executive Secretary at the above address. science. Box 322.. Section III. (1993). (1996). on a space available basis. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientiﬁc inquiry. All other advertisements must be handled directly through Kluwer’s Journals Editorial Ofﬁce. change. or to Hendrik-Jan van Leusen. & Stevenson.O. Gainesville. Box 283 Accord Station Hingham. J. Proceedings of a multidisciplinary conference. Jr. CO: Westview Press. Requests for permission to reprint previously published material should now be made directly to Kluwer’s rights department. e-mail: vanStraalen@wkap. R. 2 vols. J. References Donnelley. Agriculture. fax: +31 78 6392-254. The Netherlands or P.M.EDITORIAL 9 There will be minimal changes in the journal format. The Netherlands. A mind of one’s own. H. all pages numbered throughout. philosophical. See especially. Kloppenburg. in ﬁve copies with disk) should be sent directly to Agriculture and Human Values Journals Editorial Ofﬁce P. 18–21 October 1982. MA 02018-0283. (1990).P.O. 3300 AH Dordrecht. NJ: Princeton University Press. USA. FL. Longino. e-mail: vanLeusen@wkap. Hendrickson.nl. and social studies of science.O. 257–272). Longino. H.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.