Human Cloning Ethics: Why It Should Never Be Allowed
This paper examines the ethics of human cloning through three theoretical frameworks: virtue ethics, natural law and natural rights, and ethical relativism. Using these lenses, the paper argues that human cloning is morally and ethically indefensible despite its potential medical benefits. It considers how cloning conflicts with virtuous character, violates natural reproductive rights and human dignity, and runs counter to the cultural norms of virtually every society. The paper also raises concerns about the exploitation of women and the dangers of genetic engineering left unchecked. Drawing on scholars such as Brannigan, Harris, and Walters, the paper concludes that human cloning represents a moral barrier that should never be crossed.
- Introduction: Cloning as an Ethical Problem: Introduces human cloning as ethically indefensible bad science
- Virtue Ethics and Human Cloning: Virtue theory condemns cloning as non-virtuous behavior
- Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Artificial Reproduction: Cloning violates natural law and human dignity
- Ethical Relativism and Cultural Norms: Cross-cultural norms reject cloning and fear exploitation
- Conclusion: A Moral Barrier That Must Not Be Crossed: Cloning remains immoral regardless of potential benefits
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies three distinct ethical frameworks in sequence, giving each section a clear theoretical anchor that prevents the argument from becoming purely emotional.
- It acknowledges the strongest counterargument — the medical potential of cloning — before systematically refuting it, which strengthens the overall credibility of the position.
- Direct quotations from Brannigan, Harris, and Walters are well integrated and reinforce the paper's claims with scholarly authority rather than serving as substitutes for analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates multi-framework ethical analysis: rather than relying on a single moral theory, it tests the same question — whether human cloning is ethically permissible — against virtue ethics, natural law, and ethical relativism in turn. This technique shows the reader that the conclusion is robust across different philosophical traditions, not merely an artifact of one preferred framework.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis and a road map of its three frameworks. Each body section introduces one theory, explains its core principles, and then applies them to human cloning, including a brief consideration of the pro-cloning counterargument within the virtue ethics section. The conclusion synthesizes all three frameworks, reintroduces the strongest opposing evidence, and closes with a categorical moral claim supported by a final authoritative quotation.
Introduction: Cloning as an Ethical Problem
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 and natural rights, and ethical relativism as they relate to the ethics of human cloning, this paper illustrates why cloning humans is bad science.
Virtue Ethics and Human Cloning
The virtue theory of ethics stresses character, instead of rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. This theory also holds that if a person spends their life practicing the virtues and lives a virtuous life, they will live the "good life" and attain a higher level of ethics and morality. Applying the virtue theory to human cloning is straightforward: cloning a human being is certainly not a virtuous or commendable behavior, and so engaging in human cloning would not align with the principles of the virtue theory.
The virtues that make up the virtue theory — including moral character and education, moral wisdom, and family and friendship — all lead to a happier, more successful life and deep personal satisfaction. The theory also entails assessment of one's own morality and virtuous behavior, and many experts believe this self-assessment is impossible for scientists who might engage in human cloning, as they may not effectively judge their own 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 arbiters when it comes to human cloning. They contend that human cloning could help solve the dilemmas of many diseases, but most of society does not agree 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, however, one aspect of the virtue theory that lends some support to cloning: the ability to help many people suffering from debilitating diseases. The ability to clone humans, or to clone human organs and tissues, could lead to the treatment of many conditions. A person's diseased liver, for instance, could be replaced with a cloned liver biologically enhanced to resist the disease. This could serve the good of many and restore people's ability to lead healthy, moral lives. Walters notes that "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). Several countries, including China, Belgium, and Great Britain, support cloning research within their borders (Walters, 2004).
Conclusion: A Moral Barrier That Must Not Be Crossed
Human cloning is an intensely controversial issue that remains unresolved. While most countries ban human cloning, it is common knowledge that researchers are still working on related areas, from stem cell research to genetic engineering, and it is possible that someday these techniques could combine to produce a human clone. The possibilities for disease treatment and cure are certainly a legitimate aspect of the human cloning debate. However, cloning a human for scientific or personal reasons is morally and ethically wrong. It removes the need for human procreation and sexuality, and the threat of creating a "master" race of super-clones engineered to serve a demented leader's ambitions is not entirely far-fetched.
The morality of human cloning is not genuinely in question. Creating another human being artificially is unethical and immoral. Harris quotes Mary Warnock: "If morality is to exist at all, either privately or publicly, there must be some things which, regardless of consequences, should not be done, some barriers which should not be passed" (Harris, 2004, p. 53). Human cloning is one of those barriers, and it should not be allowed — today, tomorrow, or ever.
References
Brannigan, M. C. (Ed.). (2001). Ethical issues in human cloning: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
Harris, J. (2004). On cloning. New York: Routledge.
Walters, L. (2004). The United Nations and human cloning: A debate on hold. The Hastings Center Report, 34(1), 5+.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.