This paper analyzes Roy Baumeister's framework of selfhood evolution to explore the bioethical implications of human cloning. Drawing on Baumeister's distinction between reflexive consciousness, interpersonal being, and executive function, the paper argues that contemporary selfhood can be understood through both physical and metaphysical dimensions. The author contends that cloning creates identity conflict if selfhood is defined by the body or both body and soul, but fosters social harmony if inner selfhood—the metaphysical "soul"—becomes the primary marker of identity. This analysis reveals how shifting definitions of the self in modern society fundamentally alter ethical responses to reproductive cloning.
The development of human society has carried with it changes that greatly influenced the lives of people, specifically the individual. In Roy Baumeister's article, The Self and Society: Changes, Problems, and Opportunities, he discusses how, throughout history, humans have experienced an "evolution of the self." This social phenomenon can be linked to the changing priorities of people over periods of time, where a move from collectivism to individualism becomes apparent. Furthermore, he reflects on the kind of selfhood that existed before and exists today in contemporary times.
This paper examines Baumeister's essay in the context of one of the most controversial bioethical and social issues—that of human cloning. It discusses and analyzes how, given the author's parameters and definitions of the self or selfhood, he would evaluate the issue of cloning in contemporary or postmodern times. By linking Baumeister's essay with the issue of cloning, this paper argues that the contemporary perspective of selfhood can create both conflict and harmony between the individual and the clone.
Conflict arises because of the "duality" of the human body, which serves as the individual's physical manifestation of identity. Social harmony emerges because the contemporary perspective on selfhood extends to the substantial or metaphysical dimension of the self, which transcends physical appearance and focuses instead on the personality and "soul" of the individual. These positions are developed and supported by statements from Baumeister's essay.
In identifying the evolution of selfhood in human society, Baumeister initially discusses how society is an active agent that influences the individual's construction of selfhood. Conversely, individuals also play a part in shaping the kind of society created through social interaction. Baumeister asserts that "[i]t is no more correct to say that an individual is passively created by society than it is to regard society as a mere outcome of the choices and actions of autonomous, self-determined individuals; self and society shape each other..." (320). In this passage, the author illustrates the dynamic nature of human society, where continuous transformation occurs between society and the self.
Baumeister identifies the "created self" in society into three categories: reflexive consciousness, interpersonal being, and executive function. Reflexive consciousness occurs when "human consciousness... turn[s] around in a circle"—that is, humans are able to reflect internally about the realities and experiences they face daily. Interpersonal being, on the other hand, looks into the kind of interpersonal relationships established by the individual as they interact with society.
The interpersonal being is essential, according to Baumeister, because "[s]elves do not and probably cannot develop in social isolation... it is misleading to regard interpersonal patterns as mere accidental products of self-contained, wholly independent selves" (321). Lastly, the executive function of selfhood is the "active decision-making entity that initiates action, exerts control, and regulates the self." These categories may exist independently from one another or may simultaneously occur within an individual.
Baumeister's categories of the self characterize how, after intrapersonal, interpersonal, and group interaction, the self is socially constructed. One of the interesting points of the essay is the author's discussion and analysis of the "inner selfhood," which looks into the "substantiated self," or the "self that is not directly visible in one's actions and physical appearance" (324). This inner selfhood can be synonymously identified with the religious concept of the "soul," where the real personality and identity of the individual is determined.
The construction of the substantiated self requires the involvement of the self's reflexive consciousness, interpersonal being, and executive function. Through these factors, the individual slowly recognizes the value of their identity not only in terms of the body—the physical manifestation of the self—but also through the "soul," or the metaphysical form of the self. This "hidden, inner self" is created and given primary focus in asserting one's identity in society.
In addition, the development of the hidden inner self resulted in the emergence of a new standard or dimension of morality. Baumeister notes that "many citizens of today's Western countries believe that they must look inside themselves to find some basis for making moral decisions..." (327). Where before society set the standard for morality, contemporary times reflect the reality that there is a "loss of moral consensus," and greater focus on the subjective "moral self."
It is evident that Baumeister's The Self and Society illustrates that selfhood in contemporary times creates effects that are difficult to identify. This is because selfhood has become a subjective and personal concept for each individual. Since these concepts have become subjective, there is no definite determinant that describes what constitutes or characterizes selfhood.
At present, people are unsure whether the self is best represented by the physical body, by the metaphysical soul, or by both. This uncertainty becomes more acute when applied to the issue of cloning, which allows an individual to have their own physically replicated self. The ambiguity surrounding selfhood definition directly impacts how society evaluates the ethical permissibility of cloning technologies.
Based on Baumeister's discussion of selfhood, cloning can be detrimental to the individual and can potentially create conflict within society if the concept of selfhood is identified through the physical body, or through both body and soul. The existence of an identical body in society can create an "identity crisis" within the individual. This lack of exclusivity as the only and unique individual in society may result in adverse effects in the process of socialization and interaction.
As a result, cloning—when viewed from the perspective of the self as the body, or as both body and soul—creates conflict between the identical selves and between the individual self and society. The replication of physical form challenges the assumption that bodily uniqueness constitutes personal identity, potentially undermining the social recognition and interpersonal relationships that Baumeister identifies as essential to selfhood development.
"Shows how prioritizing metaphysical self resolves cloning ethical tensions"
Cloning would then become a non-issue, since people will recognize the right and "even a duty to do what is best for their individual, unique, esteemed selves" (328). Personal identity, in this framework, would remain uncompromised by physical replication. Thus, if the individual considers cloning as an opportunity for the cloned individual to create their own self in society, then a harmonious relationship is created and fostered between the individual, the cloned individual, and society. The metaphysical uniqueness of each person's inner selfhood ensures that despite physical similarity, psychological and spiritual distinctiveness persists.
You’re 93% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.