Agricultural Ethics and Multifunctionality Are Unavoidable

My purpose here is to help all agriculturalists, but especially researchers, feel comfortable using ethics in handling the multiple and often conflicting demands that sectors of the public press on agriculture. For three or four decades, pressures have been brought to bear upon farming and those who serve it in any capacity to widen the list of tasks to which agriculture should be devoted. At one time, the role of agriculture was to produce food, but now many people expect agriculture to be carried out in an environmentally friendly way that maintains the rural economy. We now speak of “multifunctional” agriculture. One tool sometimes used to press those demands is an appeal to ethics. This appeal can appear to suggest that agriculturalists have been ethically negligent. Every agricultural ethicist (about a dozen or so) knows by experience how poorly received that suggestion is. Agriculture is a vocation or profession that prides itself on the unquestionable value, even nobility, of its work. Agriculturalists do not need academic ethicists to tell them that it is ethical to work energetically in the pursuit of things of great value to humankind. One readily grants that human medicine and business finance need some sophisticated ethical reasoning, but does agriculture? Given the obvious and urgent natural value of food, fiber, and forest products, if an academic ethicist so much as clears his or her throat while reviewing the basic business of farming and its allied technology and science, the inferred hint of ethical deficiency in the agricultural enterprise causes immediate bristling. Is it not abundantly clear and simple that the over-arching value and purpose of agriculture is to grow things for human use? Who needs ethics to complicate that simplicity? Who needs an ethics concocted by a profession, philosophy, populated with practitioners not especially known for preaching any really self-recommending ethics, let alone practicing them? This leads to three subpurposes of this essay: to explore whether agriculture should be multifunctional, how and/or when the currently disputatious multifunctionality came into being, and why a new discipline of agricultural ethics got selected to organize if not settle the disputes. My essay will draw on multifunctional agriculture and its history in the United States to the exclusion of similar developments elsewhere in the world. Contemporary neoclassical agricultural economists are exasperated by the so-called Jeffersonian ideal, as if it were an ideal farm. They forget that Jefferson imagined that a principal value of such farms was to underpin an ideal democracy with hard-working, independently minded, and independently supported citizens who would more easily avoid the vices, civic and personal, of an urban laboring class. In other words, agriculture's function was dual: to produce solid citizens as well as food. That Jefferson's own farm laborers were neither citizens nor independent in any sense was a painful irony he was well aware of. That one “externality” or side effect of a farm economy based on slaves would be civic unrest and the near destruction of the nation can serve as a warning to this day: Immunity from ethical scrutiny is not granted to agriculture because of the unquestioned necessity and nobility of its end products, because profound human values may be impacted by the choice of means of production. An important theme that will emerge from this essay is that “multifunctional” value conflicts within agriculture arise largely out of the means used for agricultural production and not solely out of the ends. Therefore, we can expect that any mature agricultural ethics will have to offer principles that can guide the choice of means and the policies surrounding alternative ways of farming. Although the name “agricultural ethics” would have to wait two more centuries, enough ethically complex good and bad multifunctionalities were born the day United States leaders saw farming as a fit topic for deliberate policy. John Adams, on his debt-free but not yet large farm in Braintree in Massachusetts, abhorred the slave-labor and credit-burdened plantation farming of the South. And, in his last Fourth of July speech, written but not delivered, Jefferson showed that he regretted that the ideal of liberty for all had not been achieved on his farms. Paraphrasing Richard Rumbold and putting “science” in the place of “Providence” in Rumbold's original, he wrote: “The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few, booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God. These are the grounds of hope for others.” (McCullough, 2001). As a lesson in farm economics, the freeing of Jefferson's slaves would be a distant hope indeed. At his death, 130 of them had to be sold, freeing only five (Sally Hemings' relatives), to pay debts totaling $100,000, more than the net value of his entire estate. Adams died with no debts and an estate worth $100,000 (McCullough, 2001). Smaller animal farms and mixed farms that raise animals and crops (Fig. 1) are being displaced by hugh pork and poultry operations. The “efficiency” of these operations is due to the labor of the farmer/worker being valued at the level of, and therefore replaceable by, the low wage immigrant worker in the “factory farm” who receives no health benefits or union protection and lives in substandard housing. Having county tax payers pick up the health costs of these workers is one “efficiency” of such operations. Animal welfare, environmental, and community survival advocates wonder whether agricultural economists have given an honest accounting of other such “efficiencies.” Adams and Jefferson would wonder too. Is a socially just farm sector one of agriculture's functions? Small mixed farms, like this one in Mississippi, are being replaced by hugh operations that are said to be “efficient.” Yet, the true costs that accrue to the rural areas—such as the costs of the wage when these are people the that and animals a more than are now on many farms. we more farms that the rural economy even if this more by to production in John and from from at a of was at the of with and in the were to when his work Although he to was a side effect of the values he due to sometimes as those and with economists such as that the farming the to a was a more function of agriculture so that the were with the of the value of with some that such work was not an function of and with in in the the of Agriculture on is a to the of these new in is only when a value is being that a sense of to in of the value values are and only need to be when their good is when farm the of in in and the the its name to the good an urgent function to that as well have said from agricultural ethics had not yet been but multifunctionality had the and production are is not an that in many agriculture who because of to as were with their the science was an on who the needs of by of their For a this the hope that agricultural science a science even to and to theme from this values with the multiple have a for no how and the that to values will new agriculturalists were well aware of the of rural and its The to the into the of agriculture its for and animal production it was a largely and that itself with the of farm and rural at the of the was by this to the in of The the and the to at the in the as by the but its at the end of of the in the of the by a that the production of more citizens on the farm was at as important as the production of and and and that the upon more production would not a of farm the saw was not an of but a rural only from their the of and and and health were the them was many of the of the of in the a of to human with a view that only of rural and farming the and on the the of in of and by had the new of a that all the with academic economists was was not just new and new but a more and we this in its of rural in the of a in with farms the of be in the as a it to that agriculturalists were to the of to a for is at its its from and The rural brought on by farm in the and by the this for farm a of and with who had farm The of to farm and rural from to but a The of production as well as the of the were at farms. such as the and the used other to help with or who not own their to their and on the because farm a of the other for public of the farm sector to be in the to open and was to speak of farm for an farm were The of the function of rural was by the and some of its poultry and and large farms The irony of to large farms, to of or and for that to the of rural as a function of agriculture were or One of to out the of policies to by was an who the in was largely agricultural and the of the South. the of the agricultural and it for the of any agricultural in at the of in his he the economists who it were by the to to and the the being that is in (Fig. similar the discipline of in the of plantation on rural to their the of the discipline at agricultural of farming in the United States policies were at the than the the lives of the by how agricultural ethics arise from all was not yet ready to agricultural to have as the discipline in agriculture its multiple and alone the the and the to conflicts and for the human was obvious to that was a by to have the way in new policies that the rural the to in the ideal, and policies that in based solely on policies and not on any farming for the already farm operations. The to especially was clear The and farms and received an the two values that had laid out for agricultural economics, the well being of the farm and the of agricultural only the was a than a guide to and the its to for some policies and As one own had his farm due to a to the of of agricultural for but not into any any for a within the agricultural rural things were to of the by the from in The need for farm to on the farm with the of and so the need for these to to agricultural were in agriculture in the and because were of the with a agriculture The were to these new in had in The was to This on the side of agriculture in its of and was not well received by agricultural which to the by one of its own in his and the some in the of who the and its to to when work was by the of in much and he his with the he had for five on was an of agricultural but in the he to of the side of agricultural in the and a we have An value, health or which had a was being and a new pursuit of a function for agriculture. In of experience of and the was to three in an and the by of the that an on the within agricultural had to the of it was was a its agriculture and that on agriculture the had its the the so some who the costs of and be some way of farming that can those and because production is not the true but net some in is from had to be brought to bear on some agriculture to ways to a more that received the name were no more easily than science was and of the work as being were like other a to in the were by as the animal of These showed as well as for The up the of in to the of agricultural The is that of the are not are and therefore to and to have in the or on food. as the the is one of those the at the were some for and be it is to how any would have been even if a one were As the the “The benefits are but not an in the of and natural and a in the of to produce The for the are the of These benefits are to be the of which in and and of and of all this that this would not really be an as it on to “The on the of values and on his or her of the values by the in he or That is to it is a and a than one would this are to of in to production to to such is to be as an any ethicist to it agriculturalists that their in their vocation was the production of and not food, in the way that should not in like who that and agriculturalists had a new value to to avoid any and all known of agriculture was a to benefits was and agriculture was to by a of of on The of were to and to be known by the benefits was not any need for but only production That the is a of multifunctionality is not to suggest that do not whether their is is by how the benefits to were on any of the it the of and in for who or no these no at The was not in which economists to and ethicists much to wonder the for agriculture had been As as the agricultural aware that the of the United States for to agricultural in sometimes in production by means which rural so no one was to the food. history would have avoid this in and in at the of the that was that do to help the The with is that the impacted were the people in a way that was not true in or for to or even the agricultural in agriculture one really the of agriculture but the to produce an agriculture that really and were often the capacity of This is not due to their being only with and but because the of was not had had more time, and from were many other in the way the and in the way its to that up to really in and of in were to to in or to for food. Given the human at it not to in the need for agriculture to production Agriculture science was to the of the One way to multifunctionality from the of agriculture would be to its and policies The value was as by with the of farm the on new farm and policies to not large farms farms. not it that In the and farm workers the of of Agriculture and in the to some to their that the it would on out of and that which the for Agriculture of the of would in that no one within the public agriculture had that and that to such a would and This was an to demands for multifunctionality in agriculture. the was not even in farms are more than large farms, even if their is only of the within the of the of to serve this as of the theme of to such it was only by that it came into in similar the of a Agriculture and at the of in which is a of had it that to the Agriculture and to a agricultural are as as were due to its of As one it to is a to the of rural this history is that values in agriculture or impacted by its values to be as of the agricultural enterprise when those values are or at obvious to some multifunctionality would produce and conflicts in any profession or so it is not that and for are in agriculture (Fig. this as and/or their press agriculture to animal press for more for animals and on the other the in in in the pursuit of the value of In one way or will of a an agricultural for the of is as a way of the spread of the of agricultural by in their by can be a that new are by new who have means and to those with the or needs of those who will have to work at those And, as we have the can from the sense of the and to and animal the only means to or multifunctionality is in or that or and in we day their The that such is on the that this the farms like this one in have in the as people from rural to on farms are often than on large farms. have an to farms and at is the for by This essay is not at a of in agriculture but to raise the of whether are to some into this in the not to by those who to the into the and into the were to conflicts with which often of the from the like and in a more of conflicting values with the of impacted to a but of is much because it and as to out That when in the in as and some with as a of a with a whether it was to for a in a only one farm worker that was more and the that had not been out of enough and not how In this the of an agricultural are in a but are not some principles is or at is does not nor does it the one of many of ethics, science of those that human that ethics does values and to an agricultural ethics will not be so as to on the of a ethics will with its and the means of production. if that the and of agriculture that we to and of farm workers only when have been in a an will have been any to the and of in such as that by the in in its of the of business is the of business some of in agriculture. an agriculture came to an agriculture ethics we were in the he agriculture? Is some and are mature discipline or enterprise has its because agriculture is the mature and it has it way a of value conflicts an ethics The is that the that in the were by many as to the of public economists to to a not ethics. that time, an agricultural to that all and at one and if are any in the that is no why all those should be by of This into the of was and to those of who were not to neoclassical and had some experience in ethics. was not a or an just to end the that is in agricultural some and therefore especially will and from any human wage for agricultural workers is not will to with a public health and a all in the of a of in some distant human as does As in the was an “agricultural of the to the should organize itself so that it can pay its workers and that their is to history and how it The was of his people and workers and the of but the basic level and principles came from on from and from The in the and was one of a of values being to agriculture and being by were and to solid and principles for farms and rural community The that the of public for agriculture and on the that if more the history and multiple values that agriculture to a of agriculture be to this to the values of agriculture. for all their who were to the values of agriculture were often aware that agriculture was as much a to some of those values as a to agriculture. the and and its Agriculture and were in the with were already a of and not a rural to help the agricultural itself in a of these of the was in the of an on the ethics of agriculture. be no more in ethical than medicine The values were all that it was had and in philosophy, ethics. was like a ethics the was whether it given that no experience to the or At one the of to of to one of the of their given that no experience to or from the This was not a to for some ethical principles on the of yet only the had a in the on be was not and is not now much in agricultural ethics that a for The who to in agricultural not the in of ethical of or They were by the values saw or in with other values of in agriculture. They from the values One can an to a with and some of other in in Agriculture his are at the of such as and for The agricultural ethicists were were to as the values impacted by agriculture. would be to the of those a of ethics, this is a of the of ethics that can be “The good is to be or is to be or are not good or but some of natural or are good because or is in with the values of an agricultural that now and one of these in that a in the of the good is human other human that needs to human have been Therefore, those needs are the in the of needs or at and a means to and An agricultural ethics or advocates those principles that those the in with basic needs has a of human needs as it basic values for which it is one enterprise is for the of the human other ethical as we have when the means by which the profession its values to on important other farm workers and their and the in which and work because of their in agriculture are the principal values that arise with production values and with The values are urgent with production as we in any other profession when the are so bad that the the profession in large would have been to a in those would not have upon the of of at the that many agricultural economists were like all of were or and who were not the of a the profession was of help to the it was not as if not multiple values in farming. was that the that a ethical of them that would to agricultural that had received an to the ethics of agricultural economics, would spread their as would on basic needs values is one of the things that agricultural ethics because those needs are so obvious and basic that is not a of that the people who are distant from in as well in a way to for in as well as in choice of agricultural it was not as if agriculturalists not the of destruction of agricultural The of ethics be so complex as to it an have all been ethical for even if that the grounds for them well are not one is at this with largely principles and is a simple of those the purpose is to values as food, good and with principles as should be by the human needs that agriculture has to and all the multifunctional the means that the and of all the ethical principles that and a those in that and due to in of are can some of this at the is used in the of farming. agriculture that the would be much more ethically not to principles the of and for animals because those can be appeal to and because are principles that are in the not to the is all as if are not as if are means to be really and as while using the of animals and the ethicists when with level One is the not of it is to in agriculture that one does not need to one has solid that a is to a on for his it is his to that the is in the or to the choice is of that is to sense ethics is for if a such for is is because is the of not be of but principles like to it in the some time, do ethical bad by, for a with ethics principles of when with the of is with great in the is to the who the or to those the so why not in agriculture it is not clear that as a or will from the and no one has even such a for does and the public is will it like in the to them to because the with the history and of the in any The mature the science and the more the of and the more is to in all the of the is no other An for to or is of the of good ethical of the of and to the means the ends. The ethical the to the these means are not much that may that may not be in this or be with new or that the science guide should be up with and are often be in that is no a that the name or to any is only and by many and open of all the by that leads to therefore if it is it is not science, no how true and well it to be to the of the is as to good ethics as is and to good The is that such is to be when is no on basic values and the basic principles that the in The in the history that have is that to the were with the work of those values and principles needs to do this work. is not a work that can be as one to the ethicists can the than the in ethical are the because the which used should one of these is itself being to to and often and will be one of the great of if it great because the and of to avoid of when the of science would honest no agricultural ethics is public of agricultural may be for many should some to the public due to of