Surname 1 Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Ethics of Human Cloning Introduction Human cloning has been a controversial subject for a long time. Proponents of the technolog ma assert that obligation to in!ivi!ual libert" as postulate! b #.S. $ill" call calls for in!ivi!ual free!om in ma%ing choices such as human cloning. Ho&ever" the use of this technolog shoul! not cause significant harm to other people. 'n the other han!" critics believe that libert is a ver broa! term to form an uncontroversial moral right. Human cloning presents various moral moral rights conflicts an! serious harm that nee! to be a!!resse!. This paper revie&s thisThe moral thisThe moral an! ethical !ilemma of. !ilemma of. This paper tries to anal(e the human the human cloning can be anal(e! through the lenses of various ethical theories. theories. The theories &hich inclu!e &hich inclu!e utilitarian" relativist" natural la& ethics" )antian" Egoism an! virtue ethics. 'ne fun!amental *uestion that the paper pap er tries to ans&er is if human cloning is morall acceptable. The paper &ill f+irst f+irstl" l" i!entif the moral !ilemma shoul! be i!entifie! in the case stu!" stu!" an! then anal(e the case &ill be anal(e! using each theor. The case stu! presents various moral an! ethical !ilemmas of human cloning. ,f a person is conse*uentialit" i.e. the conse*uences of an action !etermine ! etermine if the action is morall right or &rong" then recogn ition of human cloning ma be reasonabl eas. ,n the present case stu!" proponents proponents of cloning coul! argue that cloning a chil! from the cells ce lls of -llan" -llan" &ho is terminall ill" coul! help the parents have another chil!. The argument &ill effectivel concentrate on minimi(ing the plight of the terminall ill patients thus creating a feeling of happiness for the majorit of p eople. Ho&ever" opponents of human cloning argue that it un!ermines human !ignit. The Utilitarian Ethics The theor posits that the right action is that &hich iel!s the greatest sense of happiness for the greatest number of people. ,n this case" the moralit of an act cannot be separate! from its
Surname conse*uences. Critics of the -ct/utilitarianism argue that the theor is at o!!s &ith in!ivi!ual rights that must not be !iminishe! just because a person e0pects goo! outcomes. Ho&ever" contemporar utilitarians have amen!e! the previous theor forming a ne& one calle! ule/ 2tilitarianism. ule/2tilitarianism establishes basic rules that ju!ge the actions of people as right or &rong. 2tilitarianism &oul! len! support to human cloning b ecause the technolog &oul! appeal to man people3s share! values of benevolence an ! smpath. The popular argument &ill favor human cloning because societ &ill reap ma0imum benefits. ,n the case stu!" the parents &oul! live happier lives b getting another son. Therefore" the theor a!vances the lifesaving aspect of human cloning that creates a feeling of happiness not onl for parents but also for other members of the societ 45ecture Notes6 $ac)innon an! +iala 78/19. Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism hol!s that there e0ists no universal ethics of right an! &rong since moralit is !epen!ent on the subjective nature of human beings. ;ithin this theor" cultural relativism hol!s that human beings are pro!ucts of societ an! culture. The !ifferences bet&een societies an! cultures shape people3s moral beliefs an! practices. -s such" the theor challenges a person3s conviction in the universalit an! objectivit of moral truth. -nother categor of ethical relativism is ethical subjectivism. The theor hol!s that there lac%s an objective &a of ascertaining right an! &rong hence human beings onl e0press personal feelings an! attitu!es. ,n general" ethical relativism is hinge! upon fle0ibilit in ma%ing choices an! personal autonom.
/88. Ethical Egoism
Surname ? Ethical Egoism proclaims that human beings have a !ut to !o that" &hich is of the best interest to the self. ,n this case" self/interest superse!es the nee!s an! interests of other people. To egoists" even those acts of altruism are merel motivate! b one3s self/interest. Human cloning &ill be openl accepte! b egoists because of the nee! to push the limits of the technolog. Ethical egoism is influential in @ictor suggesting that the clone -lan in or!er retain his uni*ue genetic gifts an! honor his memor. To egoists" human cloning presents is mostl self/serving. ,n the case stu!" @ictor &ho sho&s egoistic ten!encies thin%s that since -lan is terminall ill an! has no right to choose" then @ictor has the right to !o that for him in or!er to pursue his self/ interest. ;hen acting in concert &ith relativism an! utilitarianism" ethical egoism promotes human cloning b placing self/interest first an! the common goo! last 45ecture notes6 $ac)innon an! +iala A/A=. Virtue Ethics @irtue ethics proclaims a virtuous person must !o &hat is goo! or right. - virtuous person acts virtuousl in e0ercising virtues such as generosit" honest" care" courage" %in!ness an!" patience. T&o compelling issues that ought to be emphasi(e! &hen !ealing &ith the application of virtue ethics in human cloning are the status of the DN- !onor an! the right of the clone. ,f the argument of human cloning is base! on the moral right of the DN- !onor 4-lan in our case versus that of the clone" then virtue ethics !oes not offer much support to the analsis. The clone" accor!ing to virtue ethics" is not important to the !ebate about rightness or &rongness of the process of human cloning. ,n e0ercising a given right" such as cloning in our case stu!" one can act or not act in accor!ance &ith virtue ethics.
Surname = in!ivi!uals that see% cloning are virtuous" then h uman cloning is &ell &ithin the limits of moral permissibilit because the theor !oes not concern itself &ith the moral status of the process or outcome 45ecture notes6 $ac)innon an! +iala 189/188. Deontology (Kantianism) The goo!ness of an act or its moral &orth !epen!s on its con!ition i.e. !ut is superior to character an! conse*uences of an action. )ant3s categorical imperative informs the argument on human cloning because it is base! on moralit. -ccor!ing to this theor" for anthing to have a moral status then it must be a moral agent. - categorical imperative is a moral obligation" &hich is unanimousl compelling an! bin!ing. ,t is the !ut of human beings to act upon the moral obligation. ,n using people as means to an en!" the theor supports human cloning. ,n our present case" the ne& clone coul! give the parents the same happiness that -lan !i! since it &ill have the same phsical an! emotional characteristics enhance! b genetic transfer. -nother imperative of the )antian theor is autonom. The morall permissibilit of human cloning suggests that clones" just li%e human beings can be moral agents thus autonomous 45ecture notes6 $ac)innon an! +iala 11?/19. Natural Law Ethics The final theor of natural la& ethics postulates that an action can be natural 4goo! or unnatural 4ba!. The theor assesses actions base! on their inherent value. 'ne proponent of natural la& ethics is St. Thomas -*uinas. He hpothesi(e! that natural la& is !efine! b the &a humans ta%e part in the e0ternal la&. The e0ternal la& is the la& of o! that is objectivel an! naturall goo!. ,n appling natural la& ethics to human cloning" one can argue that clones cannot be consi!ere! human in their entiret.
Surname 8 Natural la& theor postulates that clones are not human" then the are not moral agents. ,n this case" human cloning &ill be morall impermissible 45ecture notes6 $ac)innon an! +iala 1?8/ 1=. onclusion ,n appling moral theories B )antian" virtue ethics" 2tilitarianism" natural la&" ethical
relativism an! ethical egoism to the case stu! of human cloning" it is apparent that &hether the action is morall permissible is hinge! on the moral theor use!. $ost of the ethical theories support human cloning because the clones are also moral agents. ;hen e0amining the case stu!" cloning might give the parents of -lan a ne& lease of life as the &ill have a sense of happiness. +or this reason" this paper conclu!es that human cloning for purposes of creating a ne& human being to replace a terminall ill patient might be morall permissible.
Surname > ;or%s Cite! 5ecture Notes 4Stu! ui!es. 918. $ac)innon"
Surname A Dear #oan" Than% ou ver much for provi!ing such a professional paper. ;hile chec%ing the essa" , have notice! several mista%es: / +irstl" please remember that the first/level hea!ing shoul! be bol!e!" flush left an! title
/ /
case. Secon!l" please chec% the subject/verb !isagreements. Thir!l" please chec% m comments regar!ing the thesis statement. -lso" this lin% &ill be
useful. Four gra!e for the paper is College - 4>G. The bi! share for the or!er is 79.
