its to their validity because they do not address specific issues that need to be answered(Dudley 66).After analyzing the situation, Aristotle would say that human cloning is unethical because bad means are used. For instance, it took scientists 277 tries to create the first cloned sheep. This means that there were hundreds of deformities before the successful specimen was created. In the same way, deformities of humans would be a result of experimentation, which would decrease the quality of life for those specific clones. And, even if we found a cure for a disease, let's say cancer, it would be reaching a good end through bad means. On the other hand, Kant would say that human cloning is ethical in that the number of people who benefit from it outweighs the number of people who suffer from it. For example, cloning could be a way to help expand the length of human life, but it would cost the lives of clones who were failures in the experiment. In this way, Kant would agree that bettering all of humanity in exchange for a small group of less fortunate people is justified.Somewhat closer to agreeing with Aristotle than Kant, Sartre would say the act of cloning a human being is an act of free will. Therefore, if an individual decided to go forward in this act, they would be correct because each situation is unique. According to Sartre, however, the individual is involved in this action is, in fact, responsible and would receive the consequences that come about in the particular act. Therefore, Sartre would come to a consensus that it is ethical to clone humans, but the consequences of doing so are upon those who are apart of the act.After taking into account many of the alternatives and situations of cloning, I would not support human cloning. The effects from all of the harms that are unknown outweigh all of the good that can come from the research of cloning. In addition, I agree with Aristotle that you must not use bad mean...
