Unit:
Κατεύθυνση ΗθικήLibrary of the School of Philosophy
Author:
Mylona-Giannakakou Konstantina
Dissertation committee:
Θεοδόσιος Πελεγρίνης, Ομότιμος Καθηγητής, Τμήμα ΦΠΨ, ΕΚΠΑ
Μελέτιος-Αθανάσιος Δημόπουλος, Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Ιατρικής, ΕΚΠΑ
Ιωάννης Πολίτης, Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Επιστήμης Ζωικής Παραγωγής και Υδατοκαλλιεργειών, ΓΠΑ
Ιωάννης Μπόσης, Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Επιστήμης Ζωικής Παραγωγής και Υδατοκαλλιεργειών, ΓΠΑ
Βάνα Νικολαίδου -Κυριανίδου, Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια, Τμήμα ΦΠΨ, ΕΚΠΑ
Γεώργιος Στείρης, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα ΦΠΨ, ΕΚΠΑ
Γεώργιος Αραμπατζής, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα ΦΠΨ, ΕΚΠΑ
Ευάγγελος Πρωτοπαπαδάκης, Επίκουρος Καθηγητής, Τμήμα ΦΠΨ, ΕΚΠΑ
Original Title:
Η Ηθική Θεμελίωση των Γενετικά Τροποποιημένων Καλλιεργειών
Translated title:
The Ethical Basis of Genetically Modified Crops
Summary:
In my thesis I outline the way in which agricultural biotechnology through genetic modification reforms and modifies not only our scientific but also our ethical perspectives. Based on the above framework, the objectives of the thesis are to investigate the reasons for the looming failure of philosophy in granting responses or alternative proposals, to present and understand the dynamics of specific philosophical changes in biotechnology, as well as to assess the induced moral conflicts, and in conclusion, to reposition more explicitly agriculture at the crossroads of coordinated bioethical and biotechnological goals.
In the first part (ch. I-II), I analyze commonly used arguments that derive from conflicting biocentric and anthropocentric ethical contexts. In particular, at the level of non sentient organisms, I study the aristotelian teleology and the ostensible purporsiveness of life combined with modern biocentric theories for intrinsic value. Both approaches are then contrasted with the philosophy of evolutionary biology. The epistemological and value implications from the comparative analysis of pairs of conflicting concepts reveal their structural conjunction on the issues of genetically modified organisms. I also explore, by analogy, the Aristotelian notion of nature’s mimicry and complementarity by technology, so as to better support the proposed conjunction. Then, at the level of complex ecosystems, I compare the monistic views of reductionism and holism, and I conclude that their anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric approach, respectively, are not only obsolete but mainly counterproductive. Reformulating the debate, I assess alternative pluralistic approaches, such as Norton’s and Shrader-Frechette’s which, however, are proved fragmented.
In the second part (ch. III-IV), I focus on philosophical attitudes rooted solely in opposing anthropocentric theories. Initially, I develop the systemic and philosophical basis in the analysis, assessment and management of risks to genetic modification spearheaded by the global implementation of biolaw. In the light of two contrasting approaches, simplistic positivism and cultural relativism, and through analysis of their key arguments, I confirm that these two extremes act as a brake on institutional matters. However, neither Shrader-Frechette's alternative approach succeeds in replacing the logical dichotomy with a logical continuum that is practically useful. Concluding, I focus on the dichotomy between today's generations and those in the distant future. Taking the theory of justice by Rawls as my starting point, I express my reservations both for the use of the argument of sustainability, through the equality in natural resources and for the concept of rendering rights to future generations. I show that sustainability is not simultaneously sufficient as a fair and ethically appropriate principle. I also consider that the rendering of planetary collective rights to future generations by Weiss meets counter-arguments of the person-affecting and the individualistic nature of rights.
Instead of conclusion, I attempt a succinct assessment of the role of philosophy in matters of agricultural biotechnology and its epistemological and regulatory challenges. I examine the possibility of replacing dichotomous and monistic views by a process that favors the hypothetical, non-human, geological parameters for the above challenges. By way of illustration, I describe possible synoptic steps towards a logical continuum in moral reflection. Finally, I point out the impossibility for a definitive resolution of the related issues and the need to redefine our bioethical thinking.
Main subject category:
Philosophy - Psychology
Keywords:
agricultural biotechnology, Aristotle, biocentrism, biodiversity, biolaw, evolutionary biology, cultural relativism, dichotomy, environmental ethics, future generations, genetic engineering, holism, justice, monism, positivism, reductionism, rights, risks, sustainability, teleology
Number of references:
294
