Human Cloning and Why it

¶ … human cloning and why it should not be allowed. Cloning, once thought to be impossible, is a scientific reality in the 21st century. However, human cloning is a far different situation than cloning an animal or a plant for scientific study and use. Cloning a human is as close to playing God as science can get, and for that reason, it should never be allowed or legalized. Using the theories of virtue ethics, natural law & natural rights, and ethical relativism, as they relate to the ethics of human cloning, this paper will illustrate why cloning humans is bad science.

The virtue theory of ethics stresses character, instead of rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. This theory also holds the belief that if a person spends their life practicing the virtues, and lives a virtuous life, that they will live the "good life," and attain a higher level of ethics and morality. Applying the virtue theory to human cloning is simple. Cloning a human being is certainly not a virtuous or commendable behavior, and so, engaging in human cloning would not fit in with the principles of the virtue theory. The virtues making up the virtue theory include moral character and education, moral wisdom, and family and friendship all lead to a happier, more successful life, and deep satisfaction as a person. It also entails assessment of one's own morality and virtuous behavior, and many experts believe this is impossible for scientists who might engage in human cloning, as they might not effectively judge their behavior. One ethics expert notes, "He contends that their [scientists] analyses of ethical issues are superficial, framed by attitudes that are morally au courant, such as individual reproductive rights, freedom of scientific research, and matters of autonomy" (Brannigan, 2001, p. 9). Scientists believe in the sanctity of their freedom to do research, and so, they make poor ethical experts when it comes to human cloning. They contend human cloning could help solve the dilemmas of many diseases, and that they would cure many other diseases if they could utilize human cloning techniques, as well. Most of society does not agree, however, and finds the idea of human cloning repugnant on an emotional and moral level. The search for knowledge and understanding can go too far, and cloning humans is an excellent example of that fact.

There is an aspect of the virtue theory that supports cloning and that is the ability to help many people suffering from debilitating diseases. The ability to clone humans, or clone human organs and tissues, could lead to the treatment of many diseases. I person's diseased liver could be replaced with a cloned liver, biologically enhanced to resist the disease. This could relate to the good of many, and give people back the ability to lead a good, moral life. Another writer notes scientists who support cloning often cite these beneficial results. Walters notes, "The scientific community, insofar as it is represented by the national academies of science, sees enormous medical promise in research cloning and seeks to defend scientific freedom against what it perceives as political interference" (Walters, 2004). Thus, there are many people who support the idea of human cloning, and several countries support it, as well, including China, Belgium, and Great Britain, support cloning research in their countries (Walters, 2004).

The natural law and natural rights theory indicates that the morals and ethics that direct human behavior are derived impartially from the nature of human beings, and they are given to humans by divine providence. Thus, natural law attempts to produce practical, rational decisions to moral dilemmas, and it ensures the continuation of human life. Essentially, it is the notion that one must do good and avoid evil. Cloning, however, continues human life via artificial means, and so, it is diametrically opposed to the natural law and rights theory.

It is unnatural to clone a human being, because it attempts to create human life without natural procreation, an act that is built into all humans. Scientists, in effect, are playing God when they attempt human cloning, and they are taking a natural act and making it unnatural, and thus immoral. Another writer notes, "WHO considers the use of cloning for the replication of human individuals to be ethically unacceptable as it would violate some of the basic principles which govern medically assisted procreation. These include respect for the dignity of the human being..." (Harris, 2004, p. 34). Dignity is an important concept here, because the loss of human dignity goes against the concept of natural law and natural rights. It takes away the rights humans enjoy and depend on, and replaces them with unnatural reproductive procedures. It takes the natural joy, love, and family out of a loving conception, and replaces it with a test tube, something that is clearly not good, but evil and frightening. We enjoy the ability to reproduce not only for survival, but for love, and to take that away is to take away one of our basic human rights and privileges. Harris goes on to say, "The birth of an infant by asexual reproduction would lead to a new category of people whose bodily form and genetic make-up would be exactly as decided by other humans" (Harris, 2004, p. 48). Currently, parents cannot "choose" the attributes of their children, but this could be done in human cloning, and it goes against the laws of nature and humanity to "choose" a child based on the color of the eyes, or hair, or other characteristics.

Finally, ethical relativism believes that morality develops and is relative to the norms of a specific culture. Thus, one culture might have morals and ethics that differ from another and one might not find the other acceptable. This applies to human cloning in perhaps the most viable way, because there are very few cultures, no matter their other differences, that approve of cloning. Cloning goes against the natural law, but it also goes against the norms of culture, which support the family, reproduction through love, and sound ethical and moral choices. Human cloning not only goes against the grain culturally, but allowing it to occur can have harmful effects on the culture. For example, there is worry that countries that support human cloning will become countries that exploit women. Most of the reproductive cells and embryos used in human cloning come from women, and poor, third-world country women might be exploited by ruthless scientists or intermediaries in an attempt to harvest large amounts of cells and embryos. Writer Walters worries that, "[R]esearch cloning would require a large group of oocyte providers and would therefore exploit women, and that an international commercial market in oocytes and perhaps in cloned stem cells would develop" (Walters, 2004). These are all valid and frightening concerns that could lead to a drastic change in the culture and morals of countries, another reason to ban human cloning at all odds.