Today science is developing at lightning speed. It has allowed what was once seen as unimaginable possible, such as cloning. First of all, what is cloning? Cloning is defined as a cell, group of cells, or organism that is produced asexually from and is genetically identical to a single ancestor. The cells of an individual plant or animal, except for the gametes and some cells of the immune system, are clones because they all descend from a single fertilized cell and are genetically identical. Other than the scientific level, cloning has been a controversial topic on both ethics and morality, raising questions about human cloning on several levels. Some objections refer to protection of human cloning experiments, for the reason that the process
…show more content…
According to the principle of universalization, any action is not morally acceptable if it harms the interests of humanity, or if it leads to the destruction thereof. For example, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible that all humans on the planet can be cloned or have the right to do so. If we allowed everyone to be cloned, what would happen? The answer is obvious: it would lead inevitably to global overpopulation and thereby would cause the destruction of humanity. Moreover, cloning violates the principle of Kant to a certain level, because if we make a clone in order to create a superior race, having clear expectations about the personality and physical abilities of the individual or psychological, would undermine the fundamental principles of humanity or respect for others, minorities and the individuality of human beings. In addition, if one based on the possibility that humans could be cloned to provide organs can then be transplanted into the donor DNA without risk of rejection, he admits that creating a clone simply as a source of "spare parts" is a flagrant violation of the principles of Kant. Indeed, this method would be selfish for those who can not afford such a transplant, and it also results from the use of people to achieve something. In short, cloning does not therefore comply …show more content…
In fact, according to Mill, the calculation of the moral value of any action is the result of the sum between the consequences and results of this action, the addition of happiness generated and pain caused. Unlike Kant, Mill gives no weight to the intent of this gesture, but he still believes that the consequences of an action determine its moral value. For example, cloning kills clones that have been a failure in experiments, but it could be a way to help prolong life. Given the circumstances prolonging life would be seen as “maximizing collective pleaasure and minimizing collective pain”(Barry 47) when compared to the death of failed experiments. According to the theory of utilitarianism, Mill also believes that actions must be judged on how they promote human happiness for the greatest number of people, and the action is deemed morally acceptable as it tends to promote happiness, because for Mill, happiness is the only true virtue. In this way, then Mill would agree that improving the lot of all humanity in exchange for a small group of less fortunate people is justified because they are not the consequences that must guide us, but rather the intention which is hidden behind our action. In short, cloning is morally acceptable to society because it leads to the
According to the principle of universalization, any action is not morally acceptable if it harms the interests of humanity, or if it leads to the destruction thereof. For example, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible that all humans on the planet can be cloned or have the right to do so. If we allowed everyone to be cloned, what would happen? The answer is obvious: it would lead inevitably to global overpopulation and thereby would cause the destruction of humanity. Moreover, cloning violates the principle of Kant to a certain level, because if we make a clone in order to create a superior race, having clear expectations about the personality and physical abilities of the individual or psychological, would undermine the fundamental principles of humanity or respect for others, minorities and the individuality of human beings. In addition, if one based on the possibility that humans could be cloned to provide organs can then be transplanted into the donor DNA without risk of rejection, he admits that creating a clone simply as a source of "spare parts" is a flagrant violation of the principles of Kant. Indeed, this method would be selfish for those who can not afford such a transplant, and it also results from the use of people to achieve something. In short, cloning does not therefore comply …show more content…
In fact, according to Mill, the calculation of the moral value of any action is the result of the sum between the consequences and results of this action, the addition of happiness generated and pain caused. Unlike Kant, Mill gives no weight to the intent of this gesture, but he still believes that the consequences of an action determine its moral value. For example, cloning kills clones that have been a failure in experiments, but it could be a way to help prolong life. Given the circumstances prolonging life would be seen as “maximizing collective pleaasure and minimizing collective pain”(Barry 47) when compared to the death of failed experiments. According to the theory of utilitarianism, Mill also believes that actions must be judged on how they promote human happiness for the greatest number of people, and the action is deemed morally acceptable as it tends to promote happiness, because for Mill, happiness is the only true virtue. In this way, then Mill would agree that improving the lot of all humanity in exchange for a small group of less fortunate people is justified because they are not the consequences that must guide us, but rather the intention which is hidden behind our action. In short, cloning is morally acceptable to society because it leads to the