Cloning is a process in which a sequence of DNA is copied. This process happens both naturally, as in identical twins, and can also be created in a lab (Devolder, 2013). The lab created cloning has generated many questions on whether or not it is an ethical practice. This paper will explore what consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethicists’ views are for the moral dilemma of cloning. Consequentialism defines good moral decisions based on the consequences (Fieser, n.d.). For instance, a moral decision would be considered good if the consequences were more positive than negative, or favorable above unfavorable. In taking that into consideration, the moral dilemma of cloning would be deciding if the pros outweigh the cons. Some of the …show more content…
The main duty theories cover duties to God, oneself and others, human rights, keeping promises, thanking others for help, improving other’s lives, not injuring oneself and self development for knowledge and virtue (Fieser, n.d.). Keeping these in mind, the moral dilemma could come from multiple duties competing with each other. For instance, a duty to God and improving another person’s life through the use of stem cells could cause a dilemma. Some people believe that stem cell research and use is against God’s plan, or it is taking the place of the natural order of things. It wouldn’t matter in that case how the cells were obtained. Using the stem cells could be argued as “playing God” (Manninen, n.d.). In these cases, the decision for cloning could be different based on religious backgrounds of the subject. A Catholic may be against cloning using this theory whereas an Athiest would be for it. As for cloning for any other reasons, such as cloning a sheep, would not be supported under the deontology …show more content…
These virtues include wisdom, courage, justice, generosity, respect for self, good temper and the ability to be sincere. Aristotle believed that our emotions became stabilized based on the good habits that had become regular practice. Creating copies of DNA to save another person would be a virtuous thing to do. It would require wisdom of how to perform the medical procedures and generosity of a donor. Ensuring only the most ethical practices are put into place for collection and that the collections are happening regularly, this would put the task into a habit status. Given those thoughts, a virtue ethicist would support cloning for stem cells. As long as other cloned species were created for good purposes, virue ethicists would support that as well. Given many scientific research experiments as they relate to human well being, consequentialism would be the best way to determine the most ethical way of handling cloning. Based on stem cell research alone and personal testimonies, the pros found through this type of theory are greater than the oppositions. The concerns of cloning have largely shifted focus to mainly on stem cell research and collection. There have even been success stories of avid runners repairing ligaments and muscles through the use of stem cells. As far as cloning for any other purpose, the likelihood of so much support would not
Therapeutic cloning is the process whereby parts of a human body are grown independently from a body from STEM cells collected from embryos for the purpose of using these parts to replace dysfunctional ones in living humans. Therapeutic Cloning is an important contemporary issue as the technology required to conduct Therapeutic Cloning is coming, with cloning having been successfully conducted on Dolly the sheep. This process is controversial as in the process of collecting STEM cells from an embryo, the embryo will be killed. Many groups, institutions and religions see this as completely unacceptable, as they see the embryo as a human life. Whereas other groups believe that this is acceptable as they do not believe that the embryo is a human life, as well as the fact that this process will greatly benefit a large number of people. In this essay I will compare the view of Christianity who are against Therapeutic Cloning with Utilitarianism who are in favour of Therapeutic Cloning.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Children grow up watching movies such as Star Wars as well as Gattaca that contain the idea of cloning which usually depicts that society is on the brink of war or something awful is in the midsts but, with todays technology the sci-fi nature of cloning is actually possible. The science of cloning obligates the scientific community to boil the subject down into the basic category of morality pertaining towards cloning both humans as well as animals. While therapeutic cloning does have its moral disagreements towards the use of using the stem cells of humans to medically benefit those with “incomplete” sets of DNA, the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the disagreements indubitably due to the fact that it extends the quality of life for humans.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
McGee, Glenn, (2001). Primer on Ethics and Human Cloning. ActionBioscience.org. Retrieved October 3, 2004, from: http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html
"Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry." The President's Council on Bioethics Washington, D.C. N.p., July-Aug. 2002. Web.
In conclusion, it is clear to see that cloning is not the taboo it has been made out to be. It is a new boundary that humanity has never encountered before and so it is understandable that people have qualms about ‘playing God’ by shaping a life. Although some might argue that it is immoral to clone human beings, the truth is that it is unethical not to. Given that such technology has the potential to save millions upon millions of lives, not tapping into that industry would have dire consequences on the future. In this case, the ends more certainly justify the means.
Both processes also differ in the sense that reproductive cloning has fewer advantages when compared to therapeutic techniques. Studies have consistently made evident the fact that genetically cloned animals have shorter life spans, as well as an inferior quality of life. Consequently, they also lack in genetic variation, which makes the organism more susceptible to disease, and other obstructive circumstances. Contrarily, therapeutic cloning is employed for medicinal purposes, and therefore, ethical implications are quite easy to justify. The continuing practice of therapeutic cloning in relation to stem cell research, can potentially alleviate and cure many incorrigible diseases, which is a significant benefit. Reproductive cloning on the other hand, could be described as a practice instigated to fulfil the many scientific curiosities mankind possesses, and does not have a legitimate reason as to why it is
Brannigan, C. Michael. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. New York: Seven Bridges Press, Chatham House Publishers, 2001.
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged
Last of all, Cloning is not ethical, many religious groups look down upon cloning and think it’s not proper because they think it’s like playing God. Many scientists were mainly thinking about cloning animals and, most likely, humans in the future to harvest their organs and then kill them. “Who would actually like to be harvested and killed for their organs?” “Human cloning exploits human beings for our own self-gratification (Dodson, 2003).” A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientist to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc (Andrea Castro 2005),” whether it be our desire for new medical treatments or our desire to have children on our own genetic terms (Dodson, 2003).
In the article that I chose there are two opposing viewpoints on the issue of “Should Human Cloning Ever Be Permitted?” John A. Robertson is an attorney who argues that there are many potential benefits of cloning and that a ban on privately funded cloning research is unjustified and that this type of research should only be regulated. On the flip side of this issue Attorney and medical ethicist George J. Annas argues that cloning devalues people by depriving them of their uniqueness and that a ban should be implemented upon it. Both express valid points and I will critique the articles to better understand their points.
Scientists have no problem with the ethical issues cloning poses, as they claim the technological benefits of cloning clearly outweigh the possible social consequences, not to mention, help people with deadly diseases to find a cure. Jennifer Chan, a junior at the New York City Lab School, said, "?cloning body organs will help save many patients' lives," she said. "I think that cloning is an amazing medical breakthrough, and the process could stop at cloning organs--if we're accountable, it doesn't have to go any further." This argument seems to be an ethical presentation of the purpose of cloning. However, most, if not all scientists agree that human cloning won?t stop there. While cloning organs may seem ethical, cloning a human is dangerous. Still, scientists argue that the intentions of cloning are ethical. On the other hand, there are many who disagree with those claims. According to those from a religious standpoint, it is playing God, therefore, should be avoided. From a scientific standpoint it is also very dangerous, as scientists are playing with human cells which, if done wrong, can lead to genetic mutations that can either become fatal to the clone, or cause it severe disabilities. This information does, in fact, question the moral of the issue. If cloning is unsafe and harmful, what is the point?
Imagine a world in which a clone is created only for its organs to be transplanted into a sick person’s body. Human cloning has many possible benefits, but it comes with concerns. Over the past few decades, researchers have made several significant discoveries involving the cloning of human cells (ProQuest Staff). These discoveries have led to beneficial medical technologies to help treat disease (Aldridge). The idea of cloning an entire human body could possibly revolutionize the medical world (Aldridge). However, many people are concerned that these advancements would degrade self-worth and dignity (Hyde and Setaro 89). Even though human cloning brings about questions of bioethics, it has the potential to save and recreate the lives of humans and to cure various diseases without the use of medication (Aldridge, Hyde and Setaro).