Thanks to developments in genomics,dietary recommendations adapted to genetic riskprofiles of individual persons are no longerscience fiction. But what are the consequencesof these diets? An examination of possibleimpacts of genetically tailor-made diets raisesmorally relevant concerns that are analogous to(medical-ethical) considerations aboutscreening and testing. These concerns oftengive rise to applying norms for informedconsent and for the weighing of burdens andbenefits. These diets also have a broaderimpact, especially because food patterns arefull of personal, social and cultural meanings.Diets will change one's food patterns (...) and one'sattitude towards food, and this may implychanges in one's identity. We argue that suchan impact does not necessarily raise moralproblems. Moral concerns are, however, relevantif collective values and shared meanings infood practices are at issue. Therefore, thedevelopment of genetically tailor-made dietsdoes not merely require emphasis on weighingpersonal benefits and burdens and on informedconsent. It also asks for attention to andmoral reflection on the collective valuesinvolved in food practices. (shrink)

Why has autonomy been a leading idea in philosophical writing on bioethics, and why has trust been marginal? In this important book, Onora O'Neill suggests that the conceptions of individual autonomy so widely relied on in bioethics are philosophically and ethically inadequate, and that they undermine rather than support relations of trust. She shows how Kant's non-individualistic view of autonomy provides a stronger basis for an approach to medicine, science and biotechnology, and does not marginalize untrustworthiness, while also explaining why (...) trustworthy individuals and institutions are often undeservingly mistrusted. Her arguments are illustrated with issues raised by practices such as the use of genetic information by the police or insurers, research using human tissues, uses of new reproductive technologies, and media practices for reporting on medicine, science and technology. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics will appeal to a wide range of readers in ethics, bioethics and related disciplines. (shrink)

This article proposes a number of arguments about the contemporary food system. Using the UK as a case study, it argues that the food system is marked by tensions and conflicts. The paper explores different strands of public policy as applied to the food system over the last two centuries. It differentiates between various uses of the term globalization and proposes that the real features and dynamics of the new world food order are complex and neither as benign nor as (...) homogeneous as some of its proponents allow. Opposition to the new era of globalization is emerging in the food system. This is already having some impact, questioning not just the products of the food system but the nature of its production and distribution. (shrink)

Some philosophers hold that trust grows fragile when people become too rational. They advocate a retreat from reason and a return to local, traditional values. Others hold that truly rational people are both trusting and trustworthy. Everything hinges on what we mean by 'reason' and 'rational'. If these are understood in an egocentric, instrumental fashion, then they are indeed incompatible with trust. With the help of game theory, Martin Hollis argues against that narrow definition and in favour of a richer, (...) deeper notion of reason founded on reciprocity and the pursuit of the common good. Within that framework he reconstructs the Enlightenment idea of citizens of the world, rationally encountering, and at the same time finding their identity in, their multiple commitments to communities both local and universal. (shrink)

The Cunning of Reason, Reason in Action, and now Trust within Reason—no philosopher of our time has reflected more deeply or more wisely on the theme of practical reason than Martin Hollis. With Trust within Reason we have what we must, regrettably, take as his legacy to us, and a splendid legacy it is. This is a book that deserves the attention, not only of philosophers and social scientists, but of anyone who professes to think about the implications of the (...) Enlightenment for the maintenance of social order. Hollis tells us “We cannot flourish without trust” and with this we surely must agree, following “John Locke [who] declared trust to be ‘the bond of society’”. In a “reliable social order,…people find it rational to trust one another”. Hollis’ question, and it is absolutely fundamental to debates between liberals and communitarians, or between rationalists and traditionalists, is whether reason sustains trust, and with trust social order, or whether reason undermines trust. (shrink)