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.
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+.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.