Discuss an argument that claims that since GMO technology has the potential to alleviate hunger and malnutrition throughout the world, we therefore all have an obligation to support that effort, even if we have various moral qualms with GMOs.

BLOG #6 – Paul Thompson and arguments about GMO’s
IAH 206 WHFS FALL 2015
Due Saturday evening, Dec. 5, 11:59 p.m.
Insert in the drop box for Blog #6 on D2L.

Draft:

In chapter 7 of Paul Thompson’s book, From Field to Fork, he discusses an argument that claims that since GMO technology has the potential to alleviate hunger and malnutrition throughout the world, we therefore all have an obligation to support that effort, even if we have various moral qualms with GMOs.

But Thompson takes very seriously that some considerations about the “virtuousness” (or lack thereof) of the “insiders” concerning agricultural biotechnology (scientists, etc.) put the general population in a position to reject that obligation. Perhaps this line of thought could show that qualms that we may have about GMOs are in fact not overridden by GMO technology’s promise to alleviate hunger and malnutrition throughout the world.

It’s that argument about the lack of “virtuousness” of the insiders that I want you to evaluate. Do you find it a convincing argument, or not? And why or why not?

Write an essay in which your thesis is either the claim that it is a convincing argument, or the claim that it is not.

Give a clear exposition of how that argument goes, and give the most convincing argument that you can for your position.

Then consider and respond to the most significant objection that you can to the line of reasoning that you have given.

You should make specific citations (citing the page) to the readings. It’s acceptable to only use references to Thompson’s book, thought it might be useful to cite other readings.