I'm not completely on one side of the issue or the other in terms of pro organic or pro nonorganic and this is why.
I like pastured chickens eggs, I can't afford to spend my money in the organic section of every market.
The spin on the articles is that organic food choosers (not organic food eaters) are more judgmental and less moral than non organic food choosers.
Maybe the people involved in the organic movement, have taken more time, more thought and more energy into doing something that is not only good for the environment, but also good for health--so they've thought about it more and feel that therefore they know better than the rest. Once you study something (in school or otherwise) don't you feel that since you do know more that you can make a qualified decision/judgment?
The argument for organics is even though it costs more (and it does) either in time or money, a person's health in the long run will be better. Morally, they are better stewards of the earth/land.
On the other side of the issue is that not everyone can afford it and they may not live as long, but not everyone wants to live so much longer.
(Think of the old guy in grumpier old men--bacon for breakfast, bacon for lunch and bacon for an afternoon snack and he lived a very long life.)
I for instance don't use pesticides in my gardens but if I had a garden infested with some disease or bugs destroying everything I have worked so hard for, I'd consider using a pesticide or an organic solution--it would depend on the problem and the effectiveness and cost of the solution. It's just a practical issue for me.