Morality of Cloning in Her Book \"Discovering

¶ … Morality of Cloning

In her book "Discovering Right and Wrong," Louis Pojman consistently makes the same point throughout her chapters: beyond all the debate and lack of consensus, and beyond all the confusion of relative morality, there should exist a true objective standard which a rational being can discover. In all her writing she seems to challenge the readers to look for objective evidence of truth, a plea which often has much in common with a more conservative position on politics and morality. When it comes to the issue of cloning, however, it seems that the search for rational objective evidence is frequently put aside in favor of often illogical "gut reactions." It is high time that a truly reasonable approach to cloning was attempted. In order to best approach this from an objectivist standpoint, it seems reasonable to backtrack to one of the founding fathers of modern objectivism, Immanual Kant. According to Kant, there were basic objective "universal laws" which could be discovered through rational thought and what he referred to as categorical imperatives. He wrote: "act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature." By this he meant that if one could not wish that one's actions or choice were replicated by all others in similar circumstances, or moved from the individual instance into a universal law, then one could not proceed in a moral fashion. The objective truths of the world were assumed to be thus logical and rationally created so that if everyone were to abide by them perfectly the world itself would be well. If one gives credence to the voices of the religious right on the issue of cloning, one would assume that the categorical imperative was against cloning. However, on closer inspection one can find that in most foreseeable circumstances, the weight of the universal maxim may actually lie with those who support cloning. Through looking at the situation rationally and through analyzing specific arguments, one may see that despite the negative hype cloning may in fact be a moral decision which our society and our families have a right to make.

In regards to the Kantian analysis, it is curious to see how clearly it falls in favor of cloning. When one looks to banning cloning, one sees immediate issues with universally willing that all irreligious scientific advances (or even all those that might threaten to compromise the value of life) be forbidden. One might make such a blanket statement, but this would be somewhat inconsistent in that one would not wish away the many inventions and discoveries that throughout time have struck the world as sacrilegious or threaten to human kind. For example, in their time the theories of the solar system and the automation of the workplace have both been seen as compromising the value of human life and threatening the rightful place of God. While some extremist such as the Amish might wish a return to a time before such science, it is not the place of most philosophers to consistently think this way. So one would have to more specifically will into existence not a ban on "bad" science, but on cloning in particular. Yet by the same measure, one would have difficulty willing into existence a comprehensive and universal ban on the cloning of human genetic material. However, this would fail to take into account that cloning occurs naturally in utero, a case which results in identical twins. Some cultures have in fact held that twins were a sign of evil and have had strict bans upon them. The Ibo of Africa, before colonization, are one example of such a tradition: "twin births were abhorred, being viewed as abnormal. Hence, the babies were generally disposed of, and their mothers were, at times, banished." However, this is scarcely to be considered in modern times a rational moral choice, and the fact that it has existed previously in more superstitious cultures to some degree highlights the way in which its appearance in modern culture is superstitious.

Yet could cloning be looked at within the scope of a Kantian morality? The answer may be yes, depending on the reason for the clone to be made. One could in fact will that all those incapable or unwilling to give birth in other ways would reproduce themselves through cloning, and it would in no way be self defeating. One might also feasibly will that all people reproduce themselves through cloning, and while this would be slightly odd it would not be inherently inconsistent and might in fact create a very strong and stable social structure. After all, these children are being seen as an end to themselves. Even for more dubious purposes, such as to provide bone marrow for another ill child, cloning could be universally willed. The Maxim to create one life to preserve another could be universally applied, and no harm would be done to the second child who was granted life in the bargain. Indeed, one is hard pressed to find a significant problem with cloning in concrete moral terms. As one author writes:

what exactly is wrong with it? Which ethical principle does cloning violate? Stealing? Lying? Coveting? Murdering? What? Most of the arguments against cloning amount to little more than a reformulation of the old familiar refrain of Luddites everywhere... 'if God had meant for man to fly, he would have given us wings. And if God had meant for man to clone, he would have given us spores.' Ethical reasoning requires more than that."

So if rationally one cannot find a categorical fault in cloning, and one can find categorical faults in trying to ban cloning, then one is left with the difficult task of coming up with other arguments against the practice of cloning. In the end, it appears that the practice of cloning may not be so much condemned on a rational level as it is rejected on an emotional or even instinctual level. "Cloning is a radical challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology... much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an unthinking dust -- a sort of 'yuk factor.' And that makes it hard for even trained scientists and ethicists to see the matter clearly." The idea of reproducing without sex strikes a strange cord instinctually, and the idea of some humans using cloning to produce exceptional children may seem even more threatening in a vaguely Darwinian fashion. Yet the horrors of a Brave New World scenario and massive global conformity to a superhuman status are far from realistic. "Such ideas are repulsive, not only because of the 'yuk factor' but also because of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis in the name of eugenics. But there's a vast difference... Banks stocked with the frozen sperm of geniuses already exist. They haven't created a master race because only a tiny number of women have wanted to impregnate themselves this way...." In the end, if one puts aside the instinctive sci-fi-inspired fear of cloning and the unknown, there are only three basic arguments against cloning, though each has their own set of sub-genres. These objections are that cloning is inherently narcissistic without reason, that cloning is somehow bad for society or for the clones themselves, and that cloning is inherently evil.

One of the most common arguments against cloning is even expressed by one of the creators of the legendary clone Dolly: "Why, he asked would we want to clone ourselves?"

He goes on to say that he is appalled by the very idea of human cloning because it seems so pointless to him. "Even if we truly desire an exact duplicate of someone... The plain truth is that we won't get it.... A cloned Einstein reared in twenty-first-century Los Angeles will not become a tousled professor of new physics." This argument suggests that cloning is unnecessary and will only appeal to foolish narcissists who wish to breed a perfect duplicate of themselves or an ideal child. However, the argument that cloning is unnecessary for reproduction and useless for the purpose of duplication is not a convincing argument for a variety of reasons. First, it fails to recognize the full spectrum of motivation for cloning and thus fails to see situations where it may be necessary. Likewise, it fails to recognize that psychological duplication is generally not the key of human cloning dreams, and that therefore many of the uses of cloning fall outside the realm of its argument. Finally, the argument (ironically) fails to appreciate the degree to which the natural genetic nature of humans may drive them towards cloning over other solutions.

It is entirely natural, in a Darwinian sense and in an emotional human sense, for men and women to desire to give birth to a child which is biologically their kin and to devote their parental nurturing powers to their own biological offspring. It is the essential animal nature of humans to prefer their own biological relatives over unrelated individuals when it comes to self sacrifice and nurturing. This is, of course, because genes which encourage preference for their own genetic contributions consistently reproduce more successfully and pass on to the next generation. So it is completely natural for individuals to prefer to give birth to their own genetic offspring and to children which share parts of the same genetic code. Cloning allows one to birth and parent a child that carries one's own genetic code, and therefore allows one to fulfill one's genetic need and desire to pass along one's one genes.

Idealist would of course say that such a contribution to the next generation should be made through sexual reproduction. However, in some cases this is either not feasible or not commendable. For example, one might consider the example of a mated couple who each carried a gene for Tay Sachs, and yet wanted to raise a family. Their choices are limited, and extremely poor. "They can reproduce naturally and risk passing on the disease to the child. They can go to a sperm bank and take a chance on unknown genes. They can try in vitro fertilization and dispose of any afflicted embryo... Or they can get a male relative of the father to donate sperm, if such a relative exists. This is one case where even people unnerved by cloning might see it as not the worst option." (Macklin, 51) In the first case, they risk killing their own child with poor genetic contributions. In the second, the two partners do not gain a child which is genetically related to the father (if they chose cloning they could take one male and one female clone). In the second case, they may have to agree to the killing of any afflicted embryos, which has its own moral problems. In the last case, they risk losing some parental rights to family members. With cloning, they could gain children that were biologically related to them, yet as disease free as the parents. Perhaps more importantly, these cloned children could theoretically be genetically healed of bad genes if the parents were given minor gene therapy and used altered cells to create the clones. "Cloning also brings hope to families with inherited genetic diseases by opening the way to gene therapy...age-old genetic maladies such as Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy or Huntington's disease could be eliminated completely from family trees." This is a use of cloning in which not having a "duplicate" would in fact be preferable -- the goal was to have children, not carbon copies. It is also an example of a case where one might consider cloning (or at least alteration) necessary if the couple wished to create a child who was not a carrier or a victim of this disease.

Other families could also benefit from cloning that might find no other avenues available to them which could allow for biological reproduction. For example, a man who was incapable of producing sperm (such as post-prostate cancer survivors) could not even choose in vitro fertilization, but could choose cloning if he wished to have a biological child with his mate. Likewise a woman who could not produce egg cells could carry her own biologically related child/twin to term. Cloning could allow women to have biological input into the future of the human race even when they chose not to submit to masculine standards of the patriarchy, and cloning might in fact help promote feminism and the right to biological reproductive choice. It could also allow gay and lesbians to have biologically related children. In all these cases the goal is not a narcissistic wish to reproduce the self, nor is it an unnecessary step towards reproduction. Rather it is a reasonable and one could argue ethical choice to enable people to fulfill their biological destiny and pass on their genes. It must be remembered that "current infertility treatments are less than 10% successful," and that already cloning in certain species is superseding that degree of success. As one advocate says:

Cloning yourself will not roll the clock back. It will not produce your soul mate and may not even give you your complete identical twin. What it will do is give you a baby that is more biologically related to you than anyone else. And that, says Silver, is why cloning will happen and few people will harshly judge those with infertility problems who choose it as a way to reproduce. 'It's instinctive, I think, to want to have a biological child. That's what cloning offers -- a chance for some people to have what they though they never could have: a child of their own."

If cloning does have a point, and is not merely a sort of vanity procreation license, then the more serious question arises as to whether it would be good for the children and good for society. One of the most serious concerns about cloning is that in its early stages it may cause hundreds or even thousands of deaths and children born with severe deformities, as in early animal trials. However, this concern can be bypassed with the understanding that arguments will only be set forth in favor of cloning if one assumes that it will not be undertaken before sufficient testing has proved it safe. After all, similar fears arose with in vitro fertilization, which currently produces healthy children. "Eventually animal research may indicate that human cloning can be done at no greater physical risk to the child than in vitro fertilization posed when it was first introduced," and it is at that point which cloning will be moral.

As for further harm that may befall the young clones, one may speculate that they cold live better than many of their peers. "Children produced by cloning will probably be extremely wanted children....[who will] experience the love and care they deserve." While some fear that kids will be forced to be just like their adult clone, many suggest that this is no different than the expectations on children today to be like their parents or siblings. "A ban on cloning wouldn't abolish pushy parents." However, cloning would be just as likely to provide a parent who deeply understood their child's developmental stages, needs, and desires in a way no other parent could.

Another argument is that cloning would undermine the uniqueness of every human being. However, this ignores the fact that even twins (natures clones) are usually unique. It also ignores the fact that clones would not be duplicates, as even anti-cloning advocates her repeated. Rather they would be individuals. Likewise the argument from reproductive diversity of the human race ignore the face that cloning is being suggested for small individuals or families, not for large groups, and that a slight increase in biological twins and triplets (even separated by the age of parental figures) would not significantly decrease the reproductive diversity of humans.

A final, strange and gory idea is that clones would somehow be an underclass used for experiments, brute labor, and organ harvesting. However, this fear fails to take into account the simple fact repeated in almost every reading: clones would just be humans, born into the world like anyone else, with the same aging attributes and abilities. They would be no more likely to be made a victim of a blood splattered underclass than any other category of people, and perhaps less likely to do so as they would be most likely situated in a wealthy enough home to provide the procedure. "Clones are people" and any attempt to harm them would be considered the same as murder. So one can see that neither clones nor society is particularly damaged by the creation of clones, and in fact the society may benefit as more healthy and longer lived people continued to produce and consume.

The final argument against cloning is that it is somehow intrinsically evil, no matter how logical it sounds. The debate over morality is fierce. On the one end are the pundits crying: "This is something we cannot and should not tolerate. This type of research is morally reprehensible."

On the other hand, there are the more reasonable elements which repeat that "What would a clone be [other than] a complete human being who happens to share the same genes with another person? Today, we call such people identical twins. To my knowledge no one has argued that twins are immoral." Of course, as mentioned earlier some peoples have believed that twins are immoral and a sign of evil. However, few people -- if any -- in this modern time would embrace such a position as anything other than foolish superstition.