The Moral Pitfalls of Cultivated meat: Complementing Utilitarian Perspective with eco-republican Justice Approach.

IF 2.2 4区 哲学 Q2 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Cristian Moyano-Fernández
{"title":"The Moral Pitfalls of Cultivated meat: Complementing Utilitarian Perspective with eco-republican Justice Approach.","authors":"Cristian Moyano-Fernández","doi":"10.1007/s10806-022-09896-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The context of accelerated climate change, environmental pollution, ecosystems depletion, loss of biodiversity and growing undernutrition has led human societies to a crossroads where food systems require transformation. New agricultural practices are being advocated in order to achieve food security and face environmental challenges. Cultivated meat has recently been considered one of the most desired alternatives by animal rights advocates because it promises to ensure nutrition for all people while dramatically reducing ecological impacts and animal suffering. It is therefore presented as one of the fairest means of food production for the coming decades, according to utilitarian arguments. However, food security, environmental concerns and animal welfarism guided by a short-term utilitarianism could have techno-optimism bias and could result in some forms of oppression such as anthropocentrism. I argue that there are still deep-rooted moral issues in food systems that are not addressed primarily by lab-grown meat, mainly derived from a loss of sovereignty. Food practices developed in high-tech labs with artificial interventionism constrain the ability of living entities (that are used as food) to flourish on their own terms. This paper aims to explore how sovereignty entitlements for humans and nonhumans are often overlooked by advocates of cultivated meat and the moral challenges it may pose. Accordingly, a more than utilitarian approach framed by ecological and republican justice is proposed here to shed light on some pitfalls of food chains based on cellular agriculture.</p>","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9684981/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-022-09896-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The context of accelerated climate change, environmental pollution, ecosystems depletion, loss of biodiversity and growing undernutrition has led human societies to a crossroads where food systems require transformation. New agricultural practices are being advocated in order to achieve food security and face environmental challenges. Cultivated meat has recently been considered one of the most desired alternatives by animal rights advocates because it promises to ensure nutrition for all people while dramatically reducing ecological impacts and animal suffering. It is therefore presented as one of the fairest means of food production for the coming decades, according to utilitarian arguments. However, food security, environmental concerns and animal welfarism guided by a short-term utilitarianism could have techno-optimism bias and could result in some forms of oppression such as anthropocentrism. I argue that there are still deep-rooted moral issues in food systems that are not addressed primarily by lab-grown meat, mainly derived from a loss of sovereignty. Food practices developed in high-tech labs with artificial interventionism constrain the ability of living entities (that are used as food) to flourish on their own terms. This paper aims to explore how sovereignty entitlements for humans and nonhumans are often overlooked by advocates of cultivated meat and the moral challenges it may pose. Accordingly, a more than utilitarian approach framed by ecological and republican justice is proposed here to shed light on some pitfalls of food chains based on cellular agriculture.

人造肉的道德陷阱:以生态共和正义观补功利观。
气候变化加速、环境污染、生态系统枯竭、生物多样性丧失和营养不良现象日益严重的背景使人类社会走到了一个十字路口,粮食系统需要转型。为了实现粮食安全和应对环境挑战,正在提倡新的农业做法。人造肉最近被动物权利倡导者认为是最理想的替代品之一,因为它承诺确保所有人的营养,同时大大减少生态影响和动物的痛苦。因此,根据功利主义的观点,它被认为是未来几十年最公平的粮食生产方式之一。然而,以短期功利主义为指导的粮食安全、环境问题和动物福利主义可能存在技术乐观主义偏见,并可能导致某些形式的压迫,如人类中心主义。我认为,食品系统中仍然存在根深蒂固的道德问题,这些问题主要不是通过实验室培育的肉类来解决的,主要源于主权的丧失。在人工干预的高科技实验室中开发的食物实践限制了生物实体(被用作食物)按照自己的方式繁衍生息的能力。本文旨在探讨人类和非人类的主权权利是如何经常被养殖肉类的倡导者所忽视的,以及它可能带来的道德挑战。因此,本文提出了一种由生态正义和共和正义构成的非功利主义方法,以揭示基于细胞农业的食物链的一些陷阱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics welcomes articles on ethical issues confronting agriculture, food production and environmental concerns. The goal of this journal is to create a forum for discussion of moral issues arising from actual or projected social policies in regard to a wide range of questions. Among these are ethical questions concerning the responsibilities of agricultural producers, the assessment of technological changes affecting farm populations, the utilization of farmland and other resources, the deployment of intensive agriculture, the modification of ecosystems, animal welfare, the professional responsibilities of agrologists, veterinarians, or food scientists, the use of biotechnology, the safety, availability, and affordability of food.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信