Frameworks (part 2 - Moral Orders)

The first framework we’ll look at is the ‘Moral Order’ framework by Joseph Gusfield.

I came across this framework in a paper by Alan Gross (he discusses this framework along with a couple of others): Alan G. Gross. Scientific and technical controversy: three frameworks for analysis.  Argumentation and Advocacy 42.1 (Summer 2005): p43(5).

I would like to start off by saying I don’t think this is really a framework, as it does not offer any insight into how progress could be made, or how/why things should happen. Nevertheless, let’s look at how GM fits into the concept of moral orders.

According to Gusfield, society is structured according to moral orders. These moral orders influence our judgement.

Gusfield also says that moral orders ‘distort and suppress public debate over the issues that are their concern’.

There are a few moral orders that could be associated with the GM controversy, but for the sake of keeping this post reasonably short I’ll only discuss three: religion, advocacy groups, and the right to choose.

The first moral order, religion, has played a big part in this controversy. The claim that performing genetic engineering is playing God is a well known argument against GM  – for those who believe in a God, changing the genetic code of organisms is changing the way God intended them to be, and doing so is highly disrespectful, sometimes to the extent of being considered blasphemy.

Another moral order is that of advocacy groups. Groups such as Green Peace are committed to saving the environment, and as such their moral order is to be against anything that could potentially harm the environment (such as GM). On the other side, we have the moral order that suggests that since genetic engineering is a scientific endeavour, most scientists must be pro-GM – and if they are pro-GM, they are likely to cover up scientific evidence that puts a negative slant on it.

One moral code of society is that if there is a pro-group, there must be an anti-group, and in a debate situation, the moral order is for these two parties to be completely in disagreement with each other.

Then we have the moral order of being able to decide for ourselves what we eat. A big problem people have with GM is the potential for them to be eating GM products without realising it – people want to be able to decide for themselves whether to eat it or not. They see GM as a threat to this moral order, and are demanding the labelling of anything that could potentially contain GM products.

If we are to bring this controversy to a close, perhaps we need to re-think some of these moral orders and allow for undistorted public debate.