turn into a monstrous society that looks for genetics as an easy way out. Finally, the postmodern idea of individualism is dangerous in thinking that as individuals we should be free to use genetic knowledge and not caring about how this use will effect our society as a whole. As Callahan argues we seem to believe, in fact, that there is no common good, only an aggregation of our private goods (Callahan in T&K, 19). Why is this dangerous? It is because We will use genetic knowledge to reach private ends (ex. what kind of kids we want) and long term harm to the society as a whole will be forgotten. Although Callahans final argument is that we need not have such a hazardous society, I argue that we already are such a society. We are a society that is obsessed with negative rights and non-interference and look to what is good for the individual and not society as a whole. We are a society that fears death and disease and finds the sick, the handicapped and the dying hard to cope with. We are a society that is searching through euthanasia and genetic technology to get rid of such people or such defects. We have lost our sense of compassion and instead have looked to genetics to even fix social deviancy (we are looking for genes that might cause violence and so on). So, what does this mean for cloning? I argue that it means cloning should not be used in such a dangerous society. Cloning in a post-modern, individualistic society that fears death and disease could have dangerous implications. Cloning will be used without a second thought to how it will affect society as a whole. Cloning will be used a way to escape death instead of facing and dealing with death. The technology of cloning will further retard our ability to become a compassionate society that thinks of common good and tries to accompany the sick and the dying. My second objection to cloning is that it is de-humanizing. I will argue two points for why it is de-humanizing to clo...
