The Ethics of Cloning: What Are the Arguments For and Against?

[AiA]

I never said cloning for medical reasons were wrong, some one needs a new heart clone the damn heart, but I'm simply referring to cloning full humans, and the notion if that we had wings we would be meant to fly, well if we did have wings we would be meant to fly, so that argument makes no sense.

 

[quantumdude]

and the notion if that we had wings we would be meant to fly, well if we did have wings we would be meant to fly, so that argument makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't, and Russ knows that. His point is that it uses the same silly logic that your argument uses.


If humans were born with the property of P, they would have been meant to accomplish the task of T.

Humans are not born with the property of P.

Therefore, humans are not meant to accomplish the task of T.


In your argument, P="being conceived in test tubes" and T="growing humans in test tubes". In Russ' analogy, P="having wings" and T="flying".

In addition to being logically invalid, the consequent of the first premise assumes (without justification) a subjective value judgment attached to an objective fact of life.

In short, your objection holds no water.

 

[honestrosewater]

The only argument against cloning with any merrit I see here is the argument that it will kill a lot of fertilized embryos. This is true, but weak as it depends on the not widely accepted belief that an embryo is something to be protected.

How do you know it's true? Do you mean barring any technological improvements, practical safeguards, etc.? Do you have a ratio to replace "a lot"? I'm not attacking you or anyone else, they are honest and, IMO, justified questions. I will try to find some evidence myself.

 

[russ_watters]

How do you know it's true? Do you mean barring any technological improvements, practical safeguards, etc.? Do you have a ratio to replace "a lot"? I'm not attacking you or anyone else, they are honest and, IMO, justified questions. I will try to find some evidence myself.

Well, it is of course barring a lot of improvements. Since Dolly et al. were the sole survivors of hundreds (277 for Dolly) of embryos (really, just eggs with adult-cell nuclei inserted), its reasonable to assume that at the very least, the first attempt at human cloning will work the same way. For someone strongly religious, this is a problem for two reasons:

-The egg was never fertilized.
-Religious people consider a zygote to be a full-human with a soul.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course it doesn't, and Russ knows that. His point is that it uses the same silly logic that your argument uses.

Yes, but now that you've explained it, I realize it still requires a clarification from AiA: there are people who really do believe that humans aren't meant to fly and there are people who really do believe that medical treatment (from the same post of mine) interferes with the will of God. I work with two guys who are members of one such religion (they don't wear seatbelts either). Now, there are some real internal inconsistencies with this religion - how can these guys design air conditioning systems (that's what we do) if Jesus didn't have one? About the only religion that comes close to internal consistency there is the Amish.

In any case, I wanted to point out that that could be the reason AiA didn't see the problem with the logic. Its up to him/er to clarify.

In the meantime, here's one that might be a problem: If God had ment for us to explore science and develop technology, he would have given us brains -- oh wait, he did!

 

[quantumdude]

Yes, but now that you've explained it, I realize it still requires a clarification from AiA: there are people who really do believe that humans aren't meant to fly and there are people who really do believe that medical treatment (from the same post of mine) interferes with the will of God.

Yes, that's what I meant when I referred to the "subjective value judgment". Some justification has to be given for the first premise of the argument. But even if such justification were given, it doesn't matter for the argument at hand because the fact remains that it is still formally invalid. So even if that conditional statement were universally accepted, it is still the case that the premises don't force the conclusion anyway.

So I don't see much hope for this argument.

 

[honestrosewater]

Well, it is of course barring a lot of improvements.

I only understand the basics of cloning, but I'll grant that it's probable that some (i.e. at least one) zygotes will die. And, for this discussion, I suppose one is enough.

-The egg was never fertilized.

?? Do they think the nucleus of an egg is a human?

-Religious people consider a zygote to be a full-human with a soul.

Well, I don't know what to say about souls.
A zygote is a single cell. Humans are not single-celled organisms, they are multi-celled organisms. A zygote is not a human.
A zygote has the potential to develop into a human, as does an egg or sperm. Where do you draw the line?

That may all be irrelevant anyway. How are the risks of cloning any different from the risks of normal conception? How can cloning be immoral if normal conception is moral? Is it really just a question of which is riskier?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm all for trying to clone organs, etc. It's when you come to cloning full individuals that you run into problems, because there would inevitably be screw-ups in the process of getting the cloning right, which would lead to some very deformed people.

 

[honestrosewater]

I'm all for trying to clone organs, etc. It's when you come to cloning full individuals that you run into problems, because there would inevitably be screw-ups in the process of getting the cloning right, which would lead to some very deformed people.

Deformities also occur naturally. I do recognize the objection, but I think it is just another risk. (Of course, risk needs to be considered, it just doesn't seem like it can be the basis of a moral objection.)

 

[Philocrat]

FORMAL SPECIFICATION FOR THE SCIENCE OF MAN

When it comes to the 'STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL PROGRESS' and 'SUBSEQUENT AND FINAL SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE, we would sooner or later have to confront it head on and start to look at the whole project in a more intelligible way. Yes, we are naturally entitled to hold our individual private beliefs as sources of strengths, hopes and aspirations, but never at any point in time should we allow this to obstruct the above project that inevitably must be approached and executed objectively with the most sophisticated and clearest intellecutual rigour. As the project approaches its critical moment, we cannot afford to muddle things up via our silly prides and private prejudices. We must be very clear and consistent in our minds and deeds and continue to do so.



The project would have two fundamental parts:

1) STUDYING AND UNDERSTANDING HOW A HUMAN BEING IS NATURALLY STRUCTURED AND FUNCTIONED.

This will include all the things that we have already been scientifically doing, from finding cures and vacines for all kinds of diseases, cloning for spare parts, cloning for self-replacement, cloning for desinger-parts, the GENO Project, to finding new engineering ways of building natural disasters-resistant infrastructures in our towns and cities. This would constitute the 'LEARNING PART OF THE PROJECT' and nothing more. The data for this part of the project would collect over a reasonable period of time towards that final moment of fully understanding how we are naturally configured to function the way that we are currently doing.

2) ELIMINATING ALL MEANS BY WHICH WE DIE USING THE INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED FROM (1)

This means exactly what it says: scientifically eliminating all the means by which we die, using the information obtained from (1). It is not going to be an easy decision to make. Make no mistake about that. For it is probably one of the most difficult and heart-breaking decision we would ever have to make. And I am not ignoring the fact that we may be so psychologically traumatised and pushed to the limit where we may very well have to abandon the whole project altogether. This possibility is not ruled out either. Equally, we would be very foolish and suicide-drunk not to do it, if such scientific information and technology became available to us.

IMPORTANT NOTE: In the end it all boils down to both our collective choice and individual choices. Should such a technology ever become evailable to us, it is unquestionable one most important decision that we would have to make. No one is going to make this decision for us and it is not the sort of decision that anyone can force upon his/her fellow being either. Yet, we will have to look each other in the eye and bravely make that decisions for ourselves (and God forbid bad thing, and let us also hope that violent and evil alien spiecis with superior technology don't get here first and possibly enslave or wipe us out before we even get the chance to make such a crucial and life-critcal decision). The other option is that we could equally opt for the option of doing nothing, going with the flow, and merely hoping that nothing catastrophic happens to render the human race extinct. It is stiill an option and no one should deny us this option either.

 

[russ_watters]

I missed this before:

?? Do they think the nucleus of an egg is a human?

No, they think a zygote is human and a zygote "should" only form from an egg and a sperm.

Well, I don't know what to say about souls.
A zygote is a single cell. Humans are not single-celled organisms, they are multi-celled organisms. A zygote is not a human.
A zygote has the potential to develop into a human, as does an egg or sperm. Where do you draw the line?

That may all be irrelevant anyway. How are the risks of cloning any different from the risks of normal conception? How can cloning be immoral if normal conception is moral? Is it really just a question of which is riskier?

I agree with all of your objections: I'm just pointing out that there are a significant number of people who do believe such things.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is how an intelligent pro-life friend of mine argued:

You agree that a newborn baby is human.

Would the fetus one minute before birth be fully human? (many will agree it is).

Where in the development from a newly fertalized zygote to a one-minute-before-birth fetus does the fetus cease to be unhuman and become human? This is a big event; it should be obvious; when does it occur?

If you can't specify such an event, then you have to accept that it was human all along, including the original zygote.

 

[anti_crank]

This is how an intelligent pro-life friend of mine argued:

You agree that a newborn baby is human.

Would the fetus one minute before birth be fully human? (many will agree it is).

Where in the development from a newly fertalized zygote to a one-minute-before-birth fetus does the fetus cease to be unhuman and become human? This is a big event; it should be obvious; when does it occur?

If you can't specify such an event, then you have to accept that it was human all along, including the original zygote.

This is simply an aside on the thread, but anyway. The problem arises when one tries to define "fully human". Genetically, one is fully human from the moment of conception to the moment of being a fully vegetative Alzheimer's patient, but genetics is insufficient to define 'fully human', as is physical development. What makes one "fully human" is self-awareness, free will and personhood (to the extent that such things exist), and as such, neither the zygote, nor the baby immediately before AND after birth can be said to be "fully human". A baby, born or not, is merely a potential person (souls notwithstanding), and there is no sharp phase transition between fully-human as a person and not-fully-human as a person - it happens over a number of years of mental maturation.

Of course this leads to the immediate problem of the counterargument that we should then be allowed to kill babies even up to a few years of age if we assert they are not "fully human". The solution to this Swiftian dilemma is that the difference between a born and unborn baby is an exclusive physical dependence on the mother and the mother's body. The mother doesn't need to support a born baby as she supports an unborn. Society has the means and arguably a social responsibility to care for a baby already born if the mother is either unable or unwilling, on account of its potential personhood. This potential personhood is also sufficient to grant the newborn a right to life that would override arbitrary decisions. But a potential person cannot override the fundamental rights of an already existing person. If we allow that the right to control one's body derives directly from the fundamental rights to life and freedom, then the mother's right to control her body overrides the unborn's right to life (especially if the pregnancy is dangerous, in which case the mother's right to life clearly trumps the unborn's).

It would be interesting to consider the future possibility that a mother may choose to have a baby removed from her womb to be grown in an artificial environment with the proviso that she would not be responsible in any way for the baby's future; this would seem like a way to please everyone and would give pro-lifers the chance to put their money where their mouths are in investing in such life-support systems and hospitals to perform the operations.

 

[honestrosewater]

No, they think a zygote is human and a zygote "should" only form from an egg and a sperm.

I need to read up on multiple births and cell division, but I suspect there may be an argument there, depending on the type of cell division involved, concluding that, in certain types of multiple births, where an egg is fertilized and then divides, leaving two "identical" zygotes, that only one, if any, of the resulting zygotes is actually "human".
That is, the nuclei of all "cloned" zygotes have already gone through some type of cell division, and the nuclei of some "natural" zygotes have also gone through some type of cell division. If having gone through some type of cell division makes a zygote nonhuman, then all cloned zygotes and some natural zygotes are nonhuman- unless they single out a certain type of division or a certain number of divisions. I don't know much about mitosis or meiosis or which type of cell division is involved in either. I'll look it up.

I can see some merit in the argument that having already gone through a certain type and number of divisions reduces the type and number of divisions the cell can go through before useful information starts getting lost, but, again, I don't know enough about this to make the argument either way. Anyway, it only involves the condition of the donor cells that should be used in cloning- not the process of cloning itself.

If the argument involves only the potential of a cell to become a human, then any cell containing a (suitable?) human genome has the potential to become a human- via cloning!
I don't know enough about genetics and development to make these arguments as well as they can be made. Hopefully my weakness won't be seen as a weakness in the arguments.

Where in the development from a newly fertalized zygote to a one-minute-before-birth fetus does the fetus cease to be unhuman and become human? This is a big event; it should be obvious; when does it occur?

Why must it be a big or obvious event?
Does the process work the same backwards and forwards- unhuman to human and human to unhuman?

If you can't specify such an event, then you have to accept that it was human all along, including the original zygote.

If you should know when X happens, then you know when X happens.
You should know when X happens.
Therefore you know when X happens.
If you know when X happens, then X happens.
You don't know when X happens, therefore X doesn't happen.
Is that the argument? I'm not experienced at this.

What do you all think are the best arguments for and against cloning?