"Human Cloning and Our Sense of Self," written by Dan W. Brock, a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Brown, and published in April of 2002, offers a philosophical perspective on some of the moral implications of human cloning. He addresses three main concerns people have when it comes to cloning: that cloning wo
uld injure their sense of individuality, that it would affect their value as a person, and that it would affect their sense of freedom in their life decisions. Though the author admits that it’s possible that cloning would bring about these three effects, he largely aims to diffuse the public’s fears about human cloning.Amidst all the news about the biology and politics of human cloning, I found it refreshing to get a glimpse of how a philosopher sees cloning. I think the author’s main point was that if there are any negative effects on a person’s self-worth due to cloning, it is because of false notions and personal beliefs about cloning. The author argues cloning would not actually result in a loss of individuality and uniqueness, unless it is defined as strictly genetic uniqueness (e.g. although identical twins are in fact genetically similar, we can see that they are distinct and unique individuals). Widespread human cloning could result only in a psychological, perceived loss of individuality. It’s a fine line: one could argue that the perceived loss of individuality is as bad as an actual loss.
The article also deals with the potential effects of human cloning on the perceived value of life. “It is the nature of a being,” the author writes, “not how it is created, that is the source of its value and makes it worthy of respect.” He cites the example of children who are created using technologies such as in vitro fertilization, but who are obviously treated as equal to children created using the ‘natural’ way. The article also addresses the concept of genetic determinism: the idea that a person’s genome completely determines their traits, their characte
r, and essentially, their life. The author seems skeptical that if human cloning became widely used, genetic determinism would be the rule, since it is clear that genes are only a part of what makes us who we are.I think this would be a good article for everyone to read, but especially those who are highly critical of cloning or who fear the moral implications of human cloning. The article is simply written and easy to follow and addresses the moral issues of human cloning in a fairly unbiased way. The only issue may be that the article was published in Science Magazine, which is hardly a layperson’s choice for science news. I really appreciated that the author laid out his argument in a very logical way and every step of the argument was based on rationality and not feelings. Too often, when it comes to controversial issues like stem cells, genetic engineering, and cloning, the public is swayed by arguments that appeal to their feelings rather than their logic. Articles such as this one can help to educate the public about what human cloning could possibly mean for individuality, human value, and freedom. As cloning becomes more and more feasible, these moral issues could potentially impact health care debates. Though we do not have the capability to clone a human being just yet, we are getting closer and closer. Someday, not as distant as one might think, we may have the capacity to clone a human and when that day comes, we’ll have to address these philosophical questions of the morality of cloning.
A. Suchecka
No comments:
Post a Comment