Doing Ethics in a Pluralistic World: Essays in Honour of Roger C. Hutchinson

8. Genetically Modified Food: Beauty or the Beast?

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD Beauty or the Beast? Introduction to Methodology Roger Hutchinson has long pursued a methodology for ethical clarification that allows for systematic comparison between differing positions on social issues. He has developed a model to move discussion forward in cases where interested parties with conflicting ideas about appropriate action reach an impasse. The method proposes four stages of analysis that lead toward informed action—storytelling and definition of the problem; factual clarification; ethical clarification; and post-ethical analysis (although as the clarification takes place, each stage may be revisited again and again). The first stage allows for parties to report their feelings and to recount, in their own way, their version of the issues at stake. The two subsequent stages seek to analyze the perspectives into two types of claims—testable, empirical claims and untestable, value claims. In the final stage, observations are made about the identity of the interested parties, their underlying beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life, and their political commitments and affiliations. This apparent compartmentalization is not the end of the methodology, but the process by which it leads to greater recognition of the interconnectedness of factual and value claims and the significance of this relationship for the kinds of narratives we tell and the identities we adopt.1 Notes to chapter 8 are on p. 166. 149 8 KAREN KRUG Hutchinson’s model is a fine analytical tool that facilitates clarity in debates over social issues, yet it is founded on the acknowledgment that no analysis in and of itself can dictate right action. The thinking underpinning this approach is optimistic. It fosters the possibility of consensus on action without agreeing about all the details, yet it is realistic in recognizing that implementing a policy is infinitely more difficult than agreeing on it. Developed by one with an engineering background and strong theological interests, it is a model that allows a person to place one foot in the realm of the secular and the scientific and the other in the religious and spiritual realm. The model reflects the commitments of a fine humanitarian, an individual generous in deeds and in thought, and one with a genuine interest in understanding the views of others on a host of socially relevant subjects. The model fosters integrity by supporting action based on reasoned reflection and engagement with the views of those with whom one disagrees. Despite these admirable motives, like all models the methodology is only as good as the analyst who uses it. It is with this humble awareness that I will attempt to illustrate the value of Hutchinson’s methodology by using it in the following analysis. With this same modesty, I claim myself as one student among several generations who now view this model as a practical tool for making sense of complexity and for choosing ethically sound action. I am confident this legacy will continue. Breaking positions down into particular kinds of claims—compartmentalizing —allows one to see exactly how factual and value claims are linked together and integrally related to the ideologies that influence one’s self-identity and the kinds of actions one supports. Once components have been identified, it is useful in trying to understand complex positions and identities to compare and contrast them both horizontally and vertically. A horizontal comparison would make observations about relationships between like categories: for instance, comparing and contrasting the factual claims inherent in one position with those from a second position. A vertical comparison would look across categories within a single position to highlight linkages or interdependencies among different claims or standpoints. Both processes are useful when one seeks to understand a position that differs from one’s own, or to understand in more detail the logic, passions and assumptions underpinning one’s own position on an ethical issue. Doing Ethics in a Pluralistic World 150 Hutchinson’s method for ethical clarification is designed with an awareness that the kinds of actions we support emerge not only from particular facts but also from values that we accept, and that these facts and values are intertwined in particular ways with the ideologies to which we all subscribe, either consciously or unconsciously. To illustrate how this methodology can foster greater understanding and support nuanced comparisons between widely or moderately differing positions regarding ethical issues, I have undertaken an analysis of two authors’ perspectives on food-related biotechnology. The articles were chosen so...