Cultural relativism consists of what is good and bad that is relative to the culture. In a way what is good if society approves the idea, but bad if one disapproves of the idea (Farias, 2015a). The culture in this case is the use of genetically modified organisms. Beginning with the people of Haiti, who burned the seeds Monsanto had given them. The activists in Haiti saw the seeds offered by Monsanto as poison, harming the health of their people. In their culture they saw seeds as life of the land and pure health for the people. Natural seeds were sacred to them and by Monsanto giving them genetically modified seeds was an action that went against their beliefs, and Monsanto’s attempts to harm them. Haiti activists believed that Monsanto’s
…show more content…
Through consequentialism, there are farmers who are pro GMO seeds and substance because it has in away saved their crops from dying. For instance seeds have been created to be round-up ready, killing any weeds that would harm their crop. Farmers have allowed themselves to grow crop already genetically modified, like which produces a pesticide on its own to ward of all other pesticides. By doing so rather then the genetically modified corn be a crop, it is a pesticide. The idea of producing a pesticide and feeding a pesticide to the world can be morally wrong, however through sales and economic benefits it becomes beneficial to the farmer (Seifert). Farmers have obtained greater cost efficiencies by switch to genetically modified crops, as well as the use of genetically modified crops have saved them on expense on different chemicals and other substances to keep a healthy crop (Gepts). However, in the end the one person or corporation that benefits in the long-run are the industries licensed and connected to GMO’s. These are companies like Monsanto. By patenting their crops they have allowed themselves to own their innovations of seeds and by doing so they have took it upon themselves to sue anyone using their seed or product, because of patent law. By suing farmers, Monsanto has been able to make extreme profit and money for their organization. On top of that, through patent law, Monsanto has been able to keep from disclosing the data that goes into GMO’s as well as labeling GMO’s. By doing so they are keeping people ignorant about what they are consuming, and keeping their business constantly thriving
Through consequentialism, there are farmers who are pro GMO seeds and substance because it has in away saved their crops from dying. For instance seeds have been created to be round-up ready, killing any weeds that would harm their crop. Farmers have allowed themselves to grow crop already genetically modified, like which produces a pesticide on its own to ward of all other pesticides. By doing so rather then the genetically modified corn be a crop, it is a pesticide. The idea of producing a pesticide and feeding a pesticide to the world can be morally wrong, however through sales and economic benefits it becomes beneficial to the farmer (Seifert). Farmers have obtained greater cost efficiencies by switch to genetically modified crops, as well as the use of genetically modified crops have saved them on expense on different chemicals and other substances to keep a healthy crop (Gepts). However, in the end the one person or corporation that benefits in the long-run are the industries licensed and connected to GMO’s. These are companies like Monsanto. By patenting their crops they have allowed themselves to own their innovations of seeds and by doing so they have took it upon themselves to sue anyone using their seed or product, because of patent law. By suing farmers, Monsanto has been able to make extreme profit and money for their organization. On top of that, through patent law, Monsanto has been able to keep from disclosing the data that goes into GMO’s as well as labeling GMO’s. By doing so they are keeping people ignorant about what they are consuming, and keeping their business constantly thriving