Abstract
In one study funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, people from North Dakota were interviewed to discover which moral principles they use in evaluating the morality of transgenic organisms and their introduction into markets. It was found that although the moral codes the human subjects employed were very similar, their views on transgenics were vastly different. In this paper, the codes that were used by the respondents are developed, compared to that of the academically composed Belmont Report, and then modified to create the more practical Common Moral Code. At the end, it is shown that the Common Moral Code has inherent inconsistency flaws that might be resolvable, but would require extensive work on the definition of terms and principles. However, the effort is worthwhile, especially if it results in a common moral code that all those involved in the debate are willing to use in negotiating a resolution to their differences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
T. Aquinas (1972) “Creatures Have Their Own Activity”, On the Power of God, q. 3, a. 7 M.T. Clark (Eds) An Aquinas Reader Fordham University Press NY,New York 329–333
Aristotle, in R. McKeon (ed.), Nicomachean Ethics in The Basic Works of Aristotle (Random House, Inc., New York, NY, 1941), pp. 935–1126.
Aristotle, in R. McKeon (ed.), Physics in The Basic Works of Aristotle (Random House, Inc., New York, NY, 1941), pp. 218–397.
T. L. Beauchamp L. Walters (2003) Contemporary Issues in Bioethics Thomson Wadsworth Belmont
G. L. Comstock (2002) Life Science Ethics Iowa State University Press Ames, IA
G. L. Comstock (2000) Vexing Nature? On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology Kluwer Academic Publishers Norwell, MA
D. Cooley (2002) ArticleTitle“The CIOMS’s Distributive Justice Principle: A Reply to Dr. Benatar” Theoretical Medicine 23 11–18
B. G. Glaser A. L. Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research Aldine Chicago, IL
R. L. Holmes (2003) Basic Moral Philosophy Thomson Wadsworth Belmont, CA
I. Kant (1996) The Metaphysics of Morals ed. and trans. Mary Gregor Cambridge University Press Cambridge, GB
I. Kant (1956) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals trans. Harper Torchbooks New York, NY
B. Leiser (1989) “Is Homosexuality Unnatural?” J. Rachels (Eds) The Right Thing To Do Random House NY, New York, 164–173
B. Mepham (2000) ArticleTitle”‘Wurde Der Kreatur’ and the Common Morality” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 65–78
Miller, R. L., “How the Belmont Report Fails”, Essays in Philosophy 4(2), http://www.humboldt.edu/\simessays/miller.html. Accessed July 1, 2003.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, April 18, 1979, http://206.102.88.10/ohsrsite/guidelines/belmont.html.
C. Pierce (2001) Immovable Laws,Irresistible Rights: Natural Law, Moral Rights and Feminist Ethics University Press of Kansas Lawrence, KA
J. Rachels (2003) The Elements of Moral Philosophy McGraw Hill Boston
M. J. Reiss R. Straughan (2001) Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
A. Richards (1969) “Characteristics of Ethical Systems in Primitive Human Society” F.J. Ebling (Eds) Biology & Ethics: Institute of Biology Symposia :Number 18 Academic Press New York
A. E. Shamoo D. B. Resnik (2002) Responsible Conduct in Research Oxford University Press Oxford, UK
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooley, D.R., Goreham, G. & Youngs, G.A. Practical Moral Codes In the Transgenic Organism Debate. J Agric Environ Ethics 17, 517–544 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-003-1469-3
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-003-1469-3