Ethical Issues Concerning Monsanto

Monsanto’s Ethical Issues in The World According to Monsanto

This portion of the video highlights one of Monsanto’s biggest ethical issues—its development of ethical egoism that justifies its action because of the capital and market share growth it receives. Because of the similarity between the principles of a free market and the idea of universal ethical egoism that “each individual should act in his or her own self-interest,” it is an easy ethical position for a company focused on capital growth to adopt (Hinman, 2013, slide 4). This idea, in abstract and assuming all individuals have the same possibilities and resources, is not openly harmful; however, because in reality, individuals have different levels of access to resources and because individuals’ self-interest can be contradictory, it is not an ideal ethical position for a company to adopt if it claims to want to benefit the planet.

One example of how Monsanto’s ethical stance is illogical and damaging is through the viewpoint of Jorge Galliano, a farmer in Paraguay who contrasts the genetically engineered soybean fields to the small sustainable farms. Both of these are examples of individuals acting in their own interests. According to Monsanto, such harmony is possible. Yet Galliano states that reality shows the opposite and that Monanto’s self-interest is harming the collective interests and livelihood of small farmers in Paraguay (Robin 2008). Thus, ethical egoism is showing a problem that cannot be resolved. Indeed, as Zimdahl (2012) notes, several problems with ethical egoism include its inability to resolve two individuals’ conflict when they are acting in their best interest and the fact that the inability to see in the future prevents individuals from knowing for sure if their actions are always in their best interest (p. 64). In fact, the point of the documentary is to show that Monsanto is acting in its short-term interest while ignoring the potentially irreparable long-term harm it is doing to the world, and thus the people who work for the company.

Monsanto embraces ethical egoism because it acts as though it is “living in a world that [it does] not care about” (Hinman, 2013, slide 11). As Shafer-Landau (2012) points out, ethical egoism “violates some of the deepest and most central moral beliefs we have;… it cannot allow for the existence of moral rights; and… it arbitrarily assigns self- interest complete priority over the interests of others” (p. 112).

A Discussion of Virtues

From an ethical standpoint, virtues are character traits that involve “feeling and action” and influence how individuals act to “promote human flourishing” (Hinman, 2013, slide 5). They are also traits that exist between “deficiency” and “excess,” such as “loyalty” being between “indifference” and “obsequiousness” (slide 6). In other words, virtues are socially beneficial behavioral and character traits that are demonstrated repeatedly and are not extreme forms of behavior.

As Shafer-Landau (2013) notes, virtue ethics are meant to help people understand what is required in terms of behavior and character traits in order to get a “good life” that they imagine (253). While there is merit in making a mental goal and acting in order to fulfill it, such a viewpoint does not necessarily take into account the unexpected or unanticipated life events that force individuals to make ethically charged decisions. For example, an economic crisis in a country that causes mass unemployment may force an individual to take an unethical or immoral job in order to feed his or her children. Because of this, it may be more practical for someone to adopt an inwardly motivated ethical stance as opposed to an externally shaped one.

However, virtue ethics is very compelling for an organization to adopt and to instill in its members. Many colleges, for example, have honor codes that students agree to abide by while they are enrolled. Because the school can create an external environment that allows for the development and practice of an honor code, they can more easily and effectively instill virtue ethics in the students. Similarly, the military is an organization that benefits from the use of virtue ethics. As Peter Osthoorn (2011) notes, virtue ethics, combined also with Kant’s ideas of ethics of duty helps commanders in the armed forces teach soldiers self-restraint and acting with what the military considers “honor” (pp. 3–6). As such, incidents of soldier misconduct—including brutality and performing illegal acts during warfare—is reduced. Therefore, virtue ethics is a better large-scale or organizationally based form of ethics that is perhaps less attractive for the individual.

References

Hinman, L. M. (2013). The ethics of character: Virtues and vices. [PowerPoint slides].

Olsthoorn, P. (2011). Military ethics and virtues: An interdisciplinary approach for the 21st century. London: Routledge.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hinman, L. M. (2013). “Look out for #1—and there is no #2” ethical egoism. [PowerPoint slides].

Robin, M-M. (Director). (2008). The World According to Monsanto. [YouTube clip]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEW3XyDGC4M&NR=1

Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Zimdahl, R. L. (2012). Agriculture’s ethical horizon. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.