The booming asparagus business in Peru initially would be considered to be extremely beneficial. It has provided numerous jobs for its people and has halved the poverty. However, the agricultural business there is not all beneficial. The water supply is depleting and they are lessening their crop production to accommodate the need for water. The issue with this comes full circle with decreasing asparagus production and decreasing the revenue it brings with it. To understand how the different groups of people form their opinions, one can look to ethical theories.
The first theory that is applicable is ethical egoism. Ethical egoism in this case applies to two main groups: the farmers and the countries importing the asparagus. The theory gives utmost important to one’s self. In the mind of the ethical egoist, “To respect the autonomy of other individuals is to give up this position” (Glasgow, 1968, p.84). In other words, adhering to others’ desires and needs is morally wrong since it is not self fulfilling. This relates to the two groups in the sense that they both want the asparagus to keep booming at the cost of others since it will continue to benefit themselves. For the farmers, they are making money and making a living for themselves. With the successful business of asparagus, they can reap the benefits of the importance that asparagus plays economically for Peru. As for the countries importing, such as the United States, they are benefiting since they do not have to grow the asparagus themselves. Paying for labor in another country is cheaper than paying for labor in the same country. Also, the importing country does not have to worry about its own water usage being used on the crops and whether or not its own economy is dependent on the crop. They care about getting the product they paid for and fulfilling the demand of its people, thus reaping the economic benefits of it all along with getting the crop.
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that describes the attitude of the people. Utilitarianism has “the thesis that the moral predicates of an act… are functions in some way, direct or indirect, of consequences for the welfare of sentient creatures, and of nothing else” (Brandt, 1992 , p.111). In other words, utilitarianism takes into consideration the effects on all living creatures and chooses the route of least harm. However, when viewing utilitarianism, there are two sides. If it is viewed looking into the attitudes of the people in the near future, then continuing to grow the asparagus would be considered morally right in the view of utilitarianism. The production provides jobs for people, which makes them happy, and those people are able to provide for their families, which makes their families happy. The farmers are pleased by making money and the poverty levels have halved. In this sense, it is morally right. But when looking into the far future, where water levels are dangerously low and the crop needs to be cut back on production, sending people back into poverty, it is wrong to continue harvesting this crop. The animals in the area will be forced to move and it is possible that farming will need to be moved to accommodate the need for water. When agricultural plots need to move, more deforestation may be necessary to adjust the land for the crop. Overall, since utilitarians try to pick the action that reaps the most benefits and the least harm, they would most likely agree that the overproduction of asparagus is morally wrong since it will bring about a lot of suffering down the road for future generations if water levels deplete rapidly and asparagus can no longer be grown, let alone many other types of crops.
Finally, the Kantian ethics can describe the attitude of the people that are genuinely growing asparagus for the greater good. Kant explained that “acting from the good will is the only way that actions can be truly praiseworthy” (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p.178). These people are growing asparagus to help others get jobs, to feed their families, to do good for their society. They are not driven to become rich and powerful, rather they are growing asparagus to help others. They may also actively be seeking out more environmentally friendly means of watering their crops to skew the rate at which water is depleting from the area.
References:
Brandt, R.B. (1992). Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc.
Glasgow, W. D. (1968). The Contradiction in Ethical Egoism. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. 19(6): 81-85.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.