The Question of Clones - Term Paper Example

The Question of Clones Throughout history, it has become held as a common truth that every time something new comes into being, the society at large will inevitably divide itself into those who are in favour of it, and those who would oppose it. It doesn’t matter whether this ‘something new’ is a device such as a computer or a concept such as capitalism, opinions will be formed and people will take sides either for or against it. With the great leaps and advances in science and technology being made in the past fifty years, several new concepts and topics have become the latest recipients of the yes/no debate. But perhaps no other topic in the past two decades has been as heavily debated and has strongly divided the opinions of people as the subject of human cloning. Human cloning is the concept of creating genetically identical copies of a human being through artificial means. Although the idea had been a serious area of discussion for scientists since the 1960s, it was not until 1997 that the debate truly took off with the birth of Dolly, the world’s first successfully cloned sheep and proof that recreating an entire creature from a piece of tissue was possible. Dolly’s successful birth fuelled intense debate as it became clear that clones were no longer restricted to the realm of science fiction but rather were now a reality for the near future. With animals having been successfully cloned, it would only be a matter of time before the technology to clone human beings became possible. The question of ethics has always come into consideration regarding new technology or inventions, but the subject of cloning is one that has drawn a significantly greater amount of debate and argument. The critics primarily disapprove of cloning primarily due to moral and ethical reasons. The advocates of cloning, on the other, primarily cite the various medical advancements that cloning could provide. One of the most known voices in the anti-cloning camp is the American physician and former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics Leon Kass who wrote an article entitled “The Wisdom of Repugnance” in which he gave several arguments on why cloning research should be banned. His argument primarily revolved around what he considered as the wisdom of repugnance, in which he states that “repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it” (Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance”). This was then followed up by explaining in detail the problematic question of genetic identity, as well as the negative effects of cloning on parent-child relationships and how it would be reduced from a deep and meaningful interpersonal relationship into a “complete depersonalization of procreation, the complete manufacture of human beings and the complete genetic control of one generation over the next” (Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance”). Kass finished his essay with a call for a ban on all research relating to human cloning to be implemented and enforced internationally. Following the “Wisdom of Repugnance”, an indirect reply from the pro-cloning camp came in the form of British bioethicist John Harris in his article “Goodbye Dolly?”- The ethics of human cloning. The article primarily focused on the recently-passed laws in several countries which forbid the pursuit of human cloning research on several ethical and moral grounds. Harris claimed that the basis for these laws were flimsy and lacking in logical and clear explanations, instead being “thin on argument and rationale”, and “appear to have been plucked from the air to justify an instant reaction” (Harris, ““Goodbye Dolly?”- The ethics of human cloning”, 354). Harris espouses that cloning research could lead to some truly ground-breaking discoveries in the field of medicine, and that such was enough to push for its continuation. He used the moral argument that “it is better to do some good than no good”, and that “it cannot, from the ethical point of view, be better or more moral to waste human material that could be used for therapeutic purposes” (Harris, “Goodbye Dolly?” 355-356). Harris ended the essay by stressing the importance of freedom of choice and the right to procreative autonomy. Both Leon Kass and John Harris have very compelling arguments, although the approaches that they used vary greatly. Kass makes use of powerful and emotive language, describing human cloning in a way that appears to make it seem as great a taboo as incest or cannibalism. In the same vein, he focuses on the idea of the sheer unnaturalness of cloning, stating that “asexual reproduction, which produces “single-parent” offspring, is a radical departure from the natural human way, confounding all normal understandings of father, mother, sibling, grandparent, etc., and all moral relations tied thereto” (Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance”) leading to a profound loss of social identity and ties of relationship for the cloned human. He also paints the picture of cloned children as becoming the victims of the worst form of despotic control by the ‘parents’. The article, and the arguments supporting his claim, is specifically crafted to elicit powerful emotion in the reader - in this case disgust and outrage. This powerful appeal to the emotions of the reader is aimed to elicit a very strong response, and the forceful tone of the article is effective in doing so. Aside from his primary argument using the ‘wisdom of repugnance’, Kass also has three other arguments to back his claim, namely an argument on personal identity, argument on property, and the argument on eugenics. However all three arguments have glaring faults in their reasoning which can be clearly deduced once the reader manages to look beyond the emotive words of the article. For the argument on identity, Kass claims that a clone would have issues on realizing their identity if they knew that they were genetically identical to their donor. However, this argument fails as identical twins – which are genetically exact copies of one another and are therefore for all intents and purposes actual “clones” – have no problem developing personal identities separate from each other. Indeed, Harris uses this exact counterargument in his “Goodbye Dolly?” article. The argument on eugenics claims that human cloning will lead to eugenics, which is selective breeding for optimized traits. This argument fails on the basis that regardless of whether cloning is allowed or not, eugenics is already being practiced in a manner. Family medical history and attractive physical appearance factor greatly in choosing potential life partners even without the availability of cloning. The final argument is the argument on property, which presumes that making human cloning morally permissible will cause parents to view their children as property. However, the argument can be made that whether or not human cloning becomes an acceptable actuality, the way parents treat their children is a subjective, case-to-case basis primarily dependent on the personal morality of the parents. Parents lacking in moral compunction will have no difficulty viewing and treating their children as a simple means to an end, regardless of whether those children were biologically or artificially created. Indeed, it may even be argued that children who are conceived and born as a result of cloning would be more treasured than biological children, since it would be plausible to suppose that the cloning method would require considerable expense. Speaking in strictly utilitarian terms, this would make the cloned child a valuable investment that should be treated properly at all costs. On the other hand, John Harris utilizes a more logical and measured approach. The tone of “Goodbye Dolly?” is markedly different from “Wisdom of Repugnance”, with “Goodbye Dolly?” giving off a more open-minded and cautiously optimistic atmosphere. Contrary to Kass’ style of using powerful imagery and tugging on the reader’s heartstrings, Harris follows a format of setting up the opposing arguments and then taking it apart piece by piece through rhetorical questions. Indeed, a good chunk of the paper is spent on identifying the laws and resolutions made by such countries and global entities as the European Union, UNESCO, and WHO, all of which Harris then quickly showed as severely lacking in concrete and logically sound reasons for creation. In addition to the rhetorical technique, Harris also gave his own counter-arguments to the question raised by Kass on the problem of single parenting as well as resolving questions on social identity. He presents the case of war widows as an example of why single parenting is not the major problem that Kass seems to view it to be. It can even be added that with the various institutions aimed towards aiding single parents nowadays, the argument becomes moot. Harris even follows it up by stating that depending on the method of cloning used, the cloned individual may end up having as many as three individuals that they can consider as parents. He also tackles the question of social identity, saying that even if an individual was created to be another person’s exact genetic duplicate it is hardly correct to assume that that individual would have no sense of personal and social identity. He uses the example of identical twins, which is a naturally occurring phenomenon, to support his claim, saying that “Our experience of identical twins demonstrates that each is a separate individual with his or her own character, preferences and so on. Although there is some evidence of striking similarities with respect to these factors in twins, there is no question but that each twin is a distinct individual, as independent and as free as is anyone else.” (Harris, “Goodbye Dolly?” 353) Harris also manages to place in the article a subtle dismissal of Kass’ “Wisdom of Repugnance” by stating that “there is no necessary connection between phenomena, attitudes, or actions that make us uneasy or even those that disgust us, and those phenomena, attitudes, and actions that there are good reasons for judging unethical. Nor does it follow that those things we are confident are unethical must be prohibited by legislation or regulation” (Harris, “Goodbye Dolly?” 358). The previous statement underlies the irrationality and lack of factual basis that the ‘wisdom of repugnance’ argument has. In the analysis it becomes evident then that Kass’ arguments are both lacking and fallacious. His reliance on what he considered as the wisdom of repugnance cripples his stance, as it is based on a wholly irrational and illogical basis that he himself has stated as being unexplainable. His statement that “(we) are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings not because of the strangeness or novelty of the undertaking, but because we intuit and feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear” (Kass, “Wisdom of Repugnance”) is in itself an admission that the so-called wisdom has no basis on fact or well-reasoned logic, but is a mere gut feeling or instinctual response. Far from being a strong argument, it in fact a dangerous basis for decision-making, as history has proven that disgust can quite easily be transformed into a vehicle for the persecution, mistreatment, and oppression of different groups (Nussbaum, “Danger to Human Dignity: The Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law”). Inequalities and discrimination based on differences race, gender, sexual preference, and religion were created and continue to proliferate in modern times due to the feeling of disgust that these aspects of society engendered (Nussbaum, “Danger to Human Dignity: The Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law”). In contrast, Harris’ logical dismantling of the anti-cloning resolutions and his counter-arguments to the points of parentage and identity exhibit a more level-headed viewpoint than the overzealous categorical refusals of Kass. Unfortunately, although Harris is effective in refuting Kass’ prior claims, he fails to deliver any solid claims that pertain to encouraging the pursuit of human cloning. His strongest argument for the permission of cloning human individuals is for the medical benefits that would definitely be obtained from pursuing human cloning research. While this is undoubtedly a strong position, Harris fails to deploy other reasons, choosing instead to emphasize the importance of procreative autonomy, or “a person’s right to control their own role in procreation unless the state has a compelling reason for denying them that control.” (Harris, “Goodbye Dolly?” 358). To simplify, Harris defends the right to pursue human cloning as a viable research field, but fails to give any compelling reason on why it must be pursued. For any other argument, this would have a fatal mistake, but Harris manages to elude this by making it known in the article that he is not actively promoting the pursuit of human reproductive cloning, but rather is advocating a point of view through which the subject can best be viewed. Although there is indeed a strong bias in favour of cloning, particularly of the therapeutic kind, the subject as a whole is treated with cautious optimism, with human reproductive cloning as something to be viewed as a “wait and see” situation. By taking this stance, Harris managed to avoid falling into the trap which Kass and many others involved in the cloning debate from either side have blundered into. This is the fact that in the debate on human cloning, the actual question that needs to be answered is whether or not it is immoral and unethical to allow research and experiments on human cloning and other similar technologies to be conducted, but whether or not such research and experimentation is intrinsically morally and ethically right or wrong in the first place. The question is exceedingly difficult, as it is unknown whether or not the burden of proof lies in those who advocate cloning, or those who oppose it, which is something that must be answered prior to deciding on cloning’s intrinsic moral rightness or wrongness. Kass, unfortunately, makes the automatic assumption that cloning is intrinsically wrong without giving any proof as to whether or not this is so, and thus falls prey to the fallacy of burden of proof. In closing, it can be considered that for the purpose of this essay, Leon Kass is the losing side by virtue of the fallacies of appeal to emotion and burden of proof. The lack of logical and rational explanations for the banning of human cloning research, replaced instead by emotional and irrational “gut instinct”, fall short of giving a convincing argument, not to mention that when the question of burden of proof is brought up, the entirety of his arguments are rendered moot. John Harris, on the other hand, makes an exceptionally convincing article, not only because of sound and logical rebuttals to anti-cloning arguments, but also because his focus on defending the right to pursue cloning research without making any assumptions on whether cloning is inherently moral or not allowed him to dodge the trap of burden of proof. Works Cited Harris, John. “Goodbye Dolly?” The ethics of human cloning. Journal of Medical Ethics 23. (1997) 353-360. Print. Kass, Leon R. “The Wisdom of Repugnance.” New Republic 216.22 (1997). Print. “Cloning Fact Sheet”. Human Genome Project Information. U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs. Web. 11 May 2009. Nussbaum, Martha C. "Danger to Human Dignity: The Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC. Web. 6 August 2004. Read More