How to Write a Summary of an Article? Morals and Ethics of Cloning Regardless of what our future holds, it will be based on the decisions we make today. Those decisions can be made using the Utilitarian Theory which states that we are doing good for the greatest number of people.
Get Full Essay Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues. Get Access Human Cloning: Moral Arguments Essay Sample A. I shall consider two possible candidates for such a right: The latter right has only been explicitly defended to my knowledge by two commentators, and in the context of human cloning, only by Hans Jonas; it supports a more promising, even if in my view ultimately unsuccessful, argument that human cloning would violate an important moral or human right.
Is there a moral or human right to a unique identity, and if so, would it be violated by human cloning? For human cloning to violate a right to a unique identity, the relevant sense of identity would have to be genetic identity, that, is a right to a unique unrepeated genome.
This would be violated by human cloning, but is there any such right? It might be thought there could not be such a right, because it would be violated in all cases of identical twins, yet no one claims in such cases that the moral or human rights of each of the twins have been Human cloning morals essay.
Even the use of fertility drugs, which increases the probability of having twins, is not intended to produce E twins. But if lightening strikes Cheryl, causing her death, then we would not say that her right not to be killed has been violated.
The case of twins does not show there could not be a right to a unique genetic identity. What is the sense of identity that might plausibly be each person has a right to have uniquely, which constitutes the special uniqueness of each individual Macklin ; Chadwick ? Even with the same genes, two individuals, for example homozygous twins, are numerically distinct and not identical, so what is intended must be the various properties and characteristics that make each individual qualitatively unique and different than others.
Does having the same genome as another person undermine that unique qualitative identity? But there is no reason whatever to believe in that kind of genetic determinism, and I do not think that anyone does.
This is true of identical twins Human cloning morals essay together, and the differences are still greater in the cases of identical twins raised apart; sharing an identical genome does not prevent twins from each developing a distinct and unique personal identity of their own.
We need not pursue what the basis or argument in support of a moral or human right to a unique identity might be— such a right is not found among typical accounts and enumerations of moral or human rights— because even if we grant that there is such a right, sharing a genome with another individual as a result of human cloning would not violate it.
The idea of the uniqueness, or unique identity, of each person historically predates the development of modern genetics and the knowledge that except in the case of homozygous twins, each individual has a unique genome.
A unique genome thus could not be the grounds of this long-standing belief in the unique human identity of each person.
Jonas argued that human cloning in which there is a substantial time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twins is fundamentally different from the simultaneous beginning of the lives of homozygous twins that occur in nature.
Although contemporaneous twins begin their lives with the same genetic inheritance, they also begin their lives or biographies at the same time, and so in ignorance of what the other who shares the same genome will by his or her choices E make of his or her life.
A later twin created by human cloning, Jonas argues, knows, or at least believes he or she knows, too much about himself or herself. But the force of the objection still seems to rest on a false assumption that having the same genome as his earlier twin unduly restricts his freedom to choose a different life than the earlier twin chose.
But there is no force to the claim of a younger sibling that the existence of an older sibling raised in that same family is an undue influence on his freedom to make a life for himself in that environment.
This requires that others raising a child not close off future possibilities that the child would otherwise have, thereby eliminating a reasonable range of opportunities from which the child may choose autonomously to construct his or her own life.
One way this right to an open future would be violated is to deny even a basic education to a child. Another way might be to create him as a later twin, so that he will believe his future has already been set for him by the choices made and the life lived by his earlier twin.
A central difficulty in evaluating the implications for human cloning of a right either to ignorance or to an open future, is whether the right is violated merely because the later twin may be likely to believe that his future is already determined, even if that belief is clearly false and supported only by the crudest genetic determinism.
I know that when he sees me, he is likely to believe that I have stolen his car, and therefore will abandon his driving plans for the day. I have not violated his property right to his car, even though he may feel the same loss of opportunity to drive that day as if I had in fact stolen his car.
In each case, he is mistaken that his open future or car has been taken from him, and so no right of his has been violated.
If we know that the twin will believe that his open future has been taken from him as a result of being cloned, even though in reality it has not, then we know that cloning will cause him psychological distress, but not that it will violate his right. The upshot of our consideration of a moral or human right either to a unique identity or to ignorance and an open future is that neither would be violated by human cloning.
Perhaps there are other possible rights that would make good the charge that human cloning is a violation of moral or human rights, but I am unsure what they might be. I turn now to consideration of the harms that human cloning might produce.
There are many possible individual or social harms that have been posited by one or another commentator, and I shall only try to cover the more plausible and significant of them.
Largely Individual Harms 1. Human cloning would produce psychological distress and harm in the later twin. This is perhaps the most serious individual harm that opponents of human cloning foresee, and we have just seen that even if human cloning is no violation of rights, it may nevertheless cause psychological distress or harm.
The later twin may feel, even if mistakenly, that his or her fate has already been substantially laid out, and so have difficulty freely and spontaneously taking responsibility for and making his or her own fate and life. If the later twin is the clone of a particularly exemplary individual, perhaps with some special capabilities and accomplishments, he or she may experience excessive pressure to reach the very high standards of ability and accomplishment of the earlier twin Rainer All of these psychological effects may take a heavy toll on the later twin and be serious burdens under which he or she would live.
One commentator has also cited special psychological harms to the first, or first few, human clones from the great publicity that would attend their creation LaBar While public interest in the first clones would no doubt be enormous, medical confidentiality should protect their identity.This essay will illustrate the major ethical concerns associated with human cloning that lead to the conclusion that human cloning should not be encouraged.
The greatest moral objection against human cloning lies in the claim that individuals may be unnecessarily harmed, either during experiments or by expectations after birth. Model Answer for Human Cloning Essay The cloning of animals has been occurring for a number of years now, and this has now opened up the possibility of cloning humans too.
Although there are clear benefits to humankind of cloning to provide spare body parts, I believe it raises a number of worrying ethical issues. Human Cloning: Moral Arguments Essay Sample.
A. Would the Use of Human Cloning Violate Important Moral Rights? Many of the immediate condemnations of any possible human cloning following Wilmut’s cloning of an adult sheep claimed that it would violate moral or human rights, but it was usually not specified precisely, or often even at all, what the rights were that would be violated.
Apart from the medical risks of cloning, human reproductive cloning may also weaken the concept of kin and human reproduction (Kass & Wilson, ). We will write a custom essay sample on Ethical Issues in Human Cloning specifically for you. Is there a moral or human right to a unique identity, and if so, would it be violated by human cloning?
For human cloning to violate a right to a unique identity, the relevant sense of identity would have to be genetic identity, that, . People have very different views of what is "natural." Embryo cloning still depends on a human egg from a woman and sperm from a man.
Human embryo cloning just tweaks apart a zygote at the two-cell stage, changing a single two-cell form of life into two one-cell forms of life.
One can argue that God did not intend cloning to be done.