Assuming that alternative agriculture is more than a patent nostrum, and that it is a viable method of production, not merely a good advertising blitz, then it is almost necessary via the ethics of right action. I am not criticizing alternative agriculture, I am merely stating a necessary condition for it to be justified as the right thing to do. Let’s look at all four aspects of general Right Action theory.

"Each Person ought to do whatever will best promote his or her own interest." From a shallow, "worry about tomorrow when it comes" point of view, the initial expense of alternate agriculture is perhaps unjustifiable. But if you look beyond the moment, look to the future for your self, then you will see benefits for the self based on having more than one crop on which your fortune lies, a reduced monetary cost in pest and disease control, less reliance on expensive fertilizers, and the ability to use your land for a longer time with much less degradation. You also can look at it as creating a better standard of living for everyone around you. When everyone is better off, it can only help you be better off. "The most miserable of our poor live like their kings." The presentation that we had on alternative agriculture presented the fact that alternative agriculture creates more jobs locally, and can provide your own family with a means of employment. By taking care of your children’s wellbeing today, you insure that they will be able to take care of your well being in the future.

"We ought to do what will promote the greatest good for the greatest number." As alternative agriculture is supposed to bolster the local economy, and perhaps even strengthen the sense of community locally. I do not see agriculture as an economic solution to all of our country’s problems, but I find the concept of locally produced economic strength is appealing. As for fostering a sense of community, I believe that many of the problems with our nation today can be traced back to a lack of interpersonal connectiveness. In fostering a stronger sense of community, we can insure a more pleasant community. It is very hard to ignore or hate someone who you know as a person. I believe that on the whole, a strong sense of community, as long as it doesn’t destroy individualism is in the favor of the greatest good.

"Our duty is to follow rules that we could consistently will to be universal laws." I am rather uncomfortable with this one. I have never thought that Kantian ethics were realistic. I do not believe that there is ever any action that I would find sufficient in every possible situation. There are few if any absolute rights or wrongs in this world by my lights. I suppose that alternative agriculture, through the fact that it can do much personal good with little general harm comes close to candidacy for an acceptable universal action, but I am sure that there are situations in which it is not an acceptable option.

"The right thing to do is to follow the rules that rational, self-interested people can agree to establish for their mutual benefit." I think that this one is inherent in a deeper egoism, and thus can be justified the same way that egoism can. If you take the time too look at the implications of alternative agriculture as presented last week, it seems to me that most self-interested people could see where it would benefit them. "And that’s all I have to say about that."

So I think that Alternative agriculture is defensible from the viewpoint of Right Action theory. I can not explore the deeper aspects of it in this short format, but in general, alternative agriculture seems to be a good idea too me. It promotes ecological and social justice with little harm to people, and may even protect the dignity of many.

Back to index