Food Inc. Ethical Analysis

The moment I finished watching Food Inc. I was furious. How could the government sanction the patents that the Monsanto Corporation owned? Why should Monsanto be able to take advantage of the poor farmers who are just trying to make a living while Monsanto is making billions of dollars? All of these questions were swirling around my high school mind trying to understand the reasoning behind patents on seeds. Using Kant, I initially thought that the greater good was being harmed. Monsanto was being given unlimited power to bring lawsuits against farmers and the people attempting to separate the regular seeds from Monsanto’s seeds. I was basing my entire argument on the idea that “good will is good in and of itself” (Quinn 68). I continued to
During Technological Organization and our conversation about patents, my opinion began to change. Instead of thinking about the greater good, I started to realize that profits were not the only reason for Monsanto’s aggressive policy. I began thinking about how Ethical Egoism applies to Monsanto. Following the idea that a company should take part in an “action that will provide that person with the maximum long-term benefit” (Quinn 65). Monsanto spent millions of dollars developing and attempting to perfect the genetically modified seed. There was not a guarantee of success, but this did not stop them. After spending all of this money and time, they were able to develop the seed that they set out to create. This should be rewarded. This practice should have some type of incentive for future companies to emulate. The idea of only thinking about yourself and the profits of the company is not the best theory to follow. On the other hand, Monsanto will not always have the power to enforce their patents. The framework of a patent is that it will expire in 20 years. This will allow Monsanto to reap some type of profit from their work while having a limit to amount of money they can make and power they can