An Argument Against Cloning, Speech, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Speech

An Argument Against Cloning

An Argument Against Cloning Increase in genetic knowledge has created challenges in our society. Daniel Callahan focuses on these challenges and expresses his worry about the society (soil) on which this genetic knowledge is growing. Callahan asks the question of what kind of society (soil) is most likely be hazardous and introduces three patterns: 1) societies that demonize death and illness; 2) those societies that want to find biological solutions to social problems; and 3) societies with postmodern theory that there is no common social good, only a plurality of individual goods. In his essay Callahan is concerned about what kind of society we out to be and become before genetic technology can be used. I will use Callahans argument that we need to think about what kind of society we want to become to argue against using the genetic technology of cloning. I will use a deontological approach to argue that cloning should be banned because: 1) in our society that cares about individual rights (negative rights, non-interference) and is obsessed with control over death, disease and social behavior, the use of cloning has dangerous implications; and 2) cloning is de-humanizing because it leads to the loss of human dignity and what it means to be human (parts of Hollands argument will be used to support my second claim here). What sort of society ought we to become? This question is Callahans main concern. After all, the main problem is not with the genetic knowledge, but in what kind of soil (society) that knowledge grows. Callahan argues that “it was not just bad genetic knowledge that led the Nazis astray: it was their culture of racism and anti-Semitism that allowed that knowledge to flourish and take root” (Callahan in Thomasma and Kushner, 16). Callahan makes a strong argument here in emphasizing the importance of thinking of what kind of society we want to become. What makes this argument so strong is Callahans ability to bring to light this important issue which people seem to forget in their excitement of increasing genetic knowledge. Although I agree with Callahan, I want to point out that genetic knowledge in itself must not be made out to be pure, holy and without fault, but that genetic knowledge in itself can cause a society to become racist and discriminatory. What if it is found that aggressive behavior is found to genetically exist in African Americans? Won’t that make society a bit more racist to African Americans? I understand Callahans worry of the kind of society we want to become and how that affects the use of genetic knowledge, but I also think that Callahan needs to address the faults in genetic knowledge because of the racism and discrimination it can bring to a society. Callahan asks the question of what kind of society (soil) is most likely be hazardous and introduces three patterns: 1) societies that demonize death and illness; 2) those societies that want to find biological solutions to social problems; and 3) societies with postmodern theory that there is no common social good, only a plurality of individual goods. Why are these patterns hazardous? First, with fear of death and disease and turning it into the greatest human enemy comes the temptation to do whatever we can to root them out. Death and illness becomes so unacceptable to the ambitious science that we will use genetic knowledge in a fierce and unforgiving way to “perfect the human condition” (Callahan in T&K, 18). This is a slippery slope issue here because we will not be able to accept handicapped, sick, and less than perfect humans and use genetic technology to make sure they do not exist. Second, the drive for social control will lead into us “medicalizing” social deviancy and then as Callahan argues, “use the bug gun of genetics to cure them” (Callahan in T&K, 19). Why is this so dangerous? I think it’s because we lose the sense of becoming a compassionate society of dealing with death and illness and instead we 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 clone. First, with the incorporation of human cloning into the market, clones become objectified and subject to money equivalence. As Suzanne Holland argues (using Radins analysis), “DNA is personal property and so by detaching (as cloning technology does) what is so integral to the self and ‘to make it monetizable is to do violence to our deepest understanding of what is human’ and in some sense truncates our account of human personhood.” This objectification of humans that leads to subjection to money equivalence is de-valuing human life and treating it as another thing to be sold in the market. We no longer become humans, but objects to be sold in the market. My question here is, will cloning in any way promote the value of human life? I think not. The second point I want to argue is that human cloning will lead to a loss of human dignity and what it means to be a human. I agree with Holland that feminist ethics of rights relations brings to light why cloning humans does not promote the essence of humanity. Two important aspects of rights relations are: 1) rights relations focuses on our interconnectedness and its ability to affirm dignity in being a human; 2) moving towards a social order that reflects and respects our essential human dignity. The first aspect of right relations suggests that since we are interconnected, we should not act selfishly and autonomously, but that we should consider how it would affect the common good of which we are related to. The second aspect of rights relations suggests that we should use technologies that promote our human dignity and with that our interrelatedness. With the use of human cloning selfish desires are pursued, while our interconnectedness is forgotten. There is an end to rights relations and with that comes an end to human dignity and this end to human dignity leads into the instrumental use of human beings, the clone. Again, do we want to be a society that cares so much about pursuing genetic technology that human dignity is lost and human beings (clones) are used as instruments? I know that with the introduction of cloning it will be impossible not to fall into this trap. I know that with the introduction of human cloning the value of human life will drop drastically. In this essay have used a deontological approach to argue that cloning should be banned on two basic grounds. First, I have agreed with Callahan that we need to think about the kind of society we want to become before introducing genetic technology, but I have also argued that we already are the “bad” society Callahan is afraid of and thus the introduction of cloning should be refrained from. Our society cares about individual rights (negative rights, non-interference) and is obsessed with control over death, disease and social behavior. Not until we are a society that cares about communal goods and learns to deal with death can we introduce human cloning. Second, I have argued that cloning is de-humanizing because it leads to a loss of human dignity and what it means to be a human. I want to leave the reader with the question of “why are we pursuing human cloning? Are our motives pure? Are we really thinking of communal good or are we focused only on our individual needs and desires? Do we even care about losing our human dignity and what it means to be a human?” Bibliography: Citations 1. Thomasma, David C. and Thomasine Kushner, eds., Birth to Death: Science and Bioethics (Cambridge University Press, 1996). 2. Holland, Suzanne, Why Biotechnology Should Listen to Ethics: The Issue of Human Cloning (1998).

Word Count: 1600