Ethics in the Organic Movement - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 19

2.2.2.1 The Deontological Perspective of Organic

IFOAM offers “principles to guide behavior in order that such behavior becomes
'normal'” (Vardi and Grosch 1999 , p. 109). They call for a personal obligation and
serve as moral norms to be respected (cf. Pettit 1993 ; Barnett et al. 2005 ,p.1).In
the ethical tradition of deontology, an act is moral, if the acting is done based on a
morally oriented decision (cf. McNaughton and Rawling 2007 ) and conforms to a
moral norm or rule. It asks about the inner nature of an act, and the rightness of the
act (cf. Barnett et al. 2005 , p. 5). It orients decisions along “what one should do” /
( “Was man tun soll” ) (Fenner 2010 , p. 34), independent of their consequences; it
does not automatically include a moral future oriented decision. Fulfilling the norms
is fundamental for those who hold the organic ecocentric/holistic approach—the
IFOAM Principles express this ideal. 17

2.2.2.2 The Consequentialism Perspective of Organic

The consequentialist or teleological perspective argues, “the purpose sanctifies the
means” ( “Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel” ) (Schroth 2009 ). Consequentialism declares
the rightness of the outcome or the good result of the action as the moral instance of
their acting (Barnett et al. 2005 , p. 5). It is also clear that a growing number of actors
apply the IFOAM Standards because they are mandatory and not from a sense of
duty or moral obligation. This utilitarian orientation favors the individual and con-
sumer perspective rather than a community- and citizen based approach (Carruthers
2009 , p. 299). Such approaches arise in organic practices that are followed primarily
to maximize profit, with little or no attention to social and economic justice or
ecological concerns. This position essentially disregards the IFOAM Principles.

2.2.2.3 Moderate Deontology as a Step Forward

Both approaches, the deontological and the consequential (teleological) alone are
critical for several reasons (Alrøe and Kristensen 2003 , pp. 62, 63; Clarke et al.
2008 , p. 221). First, a pure deontological approach ignores that in practice we
often do not know what might be a deontological-based decision. This is because
farming is always a process-oriented decision between short-term and long-term
perspectives in a complex environment. Second, the teleological oriented approach
contradicts the IFOAM Principles, by focusing only on the result but not on the
process, and might ignore minorities (Fenner 2010 , p. 34).

17 As introduced above, ecocentrism can also be seen as a form of deontological contractarianism
(Carruthers 2009 , 299). The IFOAM Principles are not of a legal contract, but they do offer a
type of voluntary social contract (cf. Clark 2012 ) that “provides a rationale for individuals to act
morally and for governments to create and maintain a just and ordered society” (cf. Carruthers