Human Cloning

Outline

Introduction

Discussion

Virtue Theory

Aristotle's Virtue Theory

Virtue Arguments And Human Cloning

Virtue in Biomedical Ethics Debates

Objections To Human Cloning A Review

Conclusion

Introduction

The announcement of Dolly's, the cloned sheep's birth, on 24 February 1997 forever changed the way humans think, act, and decide basic issues concerning medical advancements for treating both the very young (embryos), the sick, the aged, and now the possible person or clone. It was this revolutionary achievement of biology that Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleague, Keith Campbell, both of the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland that created a paradigm shift in common thought about what humans are, how humans should be created, and whether or not there is something essential about the way humans reproduce their species—sexuality itself is an important part of the public debate about cloning—and this happened long before cloning's technical achievements were known.

There are several philosophical questions that result from Dr. Wilmut's accomplishments, and some of these questions are what I shall attempt to clarify and answer in the course of this work, ultimately trying to give a solution to the questions that I claim to be the core issues of the intense moral debates that occur in the sphere of bioethics as they relate to human cloning.1 The major philosophical issues that the political and social majority want explained are the moral issues. When, where, and by what means is human cloning ever morally permissible are the moral question that come directly to mind after hearing of Dolly's birth. The scientific questions are just as interesting: “Can Homo Sapiens be cloned?” But the one question that looms largest is: “Ought cloning to be done with people?” Some of the other philosophical questions are interesting, but less important on a large social scale. These range from issues of identity to claims about genetic essentialism.

Discussion

The three general theories of ethics all have something at the center of their moral theories that distinguishes them from the other theory. If we understand what each theory takes to be the object of moral assessment, we will better understand why one would claim that a particular kind of human cloning was permissible or not give the ethical theory. Consequentialism is a theory that takes actions or more precisely the results of actions to be the primary bearers of moral value. Now for many of us, this is where the moral buck stops. Something is good/right or bad/wrong contingent upon the outcome of a particular action. That is, some action is good if it has good consequences, bad if it has bad consequences. Thus, this is a rather intuitive position for which people can relate moral decision making. Actions, however, are not the only thing for which one could take to be the object of moral evaluation.

Aristotle and modern virtue theorists take a person's characteristics to be the primary object of moral assessment. So, what is important for a virtue theorist is not the outcome of a particular action, it is the ...