Ethics in the Organic Movement - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 15

of stipulated technical practices defined as organic. 6 Perhaps the most egregious
illustration of this instrumentalist organic, is seen with farmers who convert in order
to capture high-premiums and government subsidies, as well as those consumers
who purchase organic predominantly for personal health reasons (Magnusson et al.
2003 ; Gilg et al. 2005 ). The “conventionalization” of organic, and the seemingly
endless controversy over specific cropping or animal husbandry practices—which
are covered by the guidelines, yet copy conventional approaches—is a variant of
instrumentalist organic (Best 2008 ).
Farmers, processors or traders who are interested in organic for purely
instrumentalist (and economic) reasons are rarely, if ever, interested in discussions
about organic and health, ecology, fairness or concerns for future generations.
Furthermore, an Anthropocentric perspective overlooks the complex consequences
of internationalization, commodification and industrialization of organic food
and farming, including its critical social and environmental impacts (Raynolds
2004 ). 7
Equally instrumentalist are actions or policies based on the notion of duty to
future human generations or those based on valuing nature as a way to avoid
ecological disaster, thus conserving for the future need of people. Many organic
marketing strategies illustrate this approach in promoting a “feel good” rationale for
buying organic without reference to specific crop production or livestock practices
that would be important in terms of the IFOAM Principles (cf. Thompson 1998 ;
Tanner and Wölfing Kast 2003 ; Ginsberg and Bloom 2004 ; Hamm and Gronefeld
2004 ).

2.2.1.2 The Theocentric View

This view of human-nature relationships was historically the foundation of organic
thinking (see sections below on the Müllers and Lady Balfour), but is much less
prominent in contemporary discussions (see Chap. 13 ) . In this view, nature is seen
as God's creation and thus, is sacred. All human and non-human life, including
the land and the earth, have value (Carruthers 2009 , p. 302), and humans hold
a moral responsibility to God to be faithful stewards for all of God's creation

6 The discussion about (pragmatic) anthropocentrism in environmental ethics reminds us that
there are multiple understandings of these ethics (cf. Minteer and Manning 2005 ;Katz 2008 ;P.
Thompson 2008 ), but also controversies about how they contrast with other ethical concepts (Jacob
1994 ; Johnson 1996 ;Norton 2008 ).
7 This largely utilitarian position is in conflict with what we call “daily morals” (Alltagsmoral)
(Daly et al. 1995 ); individuals who use this approach cannot prevent endangering individuals
or minorities as they pursue their goals. In contrast, daily morals based on Christian traditions
guarantee through a set of rules that the weakest in society enjoy legal and public protection
(Fischer 2003 ).