Steinbocks Moral Theory

Improved Essays
Chris Ahmad
Phil 116
Paper #1
Human embryos are organisms in early stages of life, typically the first to eighth week of development, and are created by the fertilization of an egg with a sperm. In terms of the argument at hand, early embryos are of interest (14 days after fertilization). They can be obtained in numerous ways and are useful in many types of research, especially medical treatment, due to the fact that they are a source of pluripotent stem cells that are able to divide into many types of cells. Bonnie Steinbock argues that stem cell research isn’t determined solely by moral status and that though the specific embryos discussed do not have moral status, they do have moral value, thus need to be dealt with respectfully (Steinbock
…show more content…
According to Steinbock, both theories claim that embryos lack moral status. It doesn’t matter what idea we adopt when discussing the moral status of an embryo. According to Steinbock, both theories claim that embryos lack moral status. Yet this doesn’t necessarily mean we can treat them however we like. Steinbocks states that a HERP report states that even though human embryos don’t have moral status like young humans (infants or toddlers), they still deserve respect and solemn moral consideration because of the fact that embryos are regarded as a developing form of Homo sapiens life (Steinbock 433). They may lack moral status, but they have moral value. An entity has moral value when it has reasons to treat it in particular ways and not in other ways. In the case of embryos, it has the potential to become a fully developed human and that is why Stenbock is correct in stating that embryos should be respected because of their importance (Steinbock

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It does, for the most part, seem good not to beat your children and therefore the moral assertion is: do not beat your children. Humans do moral reasoning with their brains – this much seems true, however, this does not mean that biology and neurobiology should be the moral dictators of right and wrong. Nor does it mean that things that benefit the public good or even the individual good are morally right for the same reason that eugenics might benefit humanity but is morally abhorrent. A better line of inquiry might not be to state that morality finds a firm basis in science, but to ask how science might justify and assist the advancements of morality already done in…

    • 904 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In contrast, “human beings with potential” means that the babies are human even though they are not yet born into the world. They have the potential, not be become human, because they already are, but potential to increase the good in the world. As Dr. Hilgers said, these…

    • 801 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Egg cells and Sperm cells are different from each other in character and purposes. Both of these cells play an important part in human reproduction. Each cell is implanted with 23 chromosomes and when they fuse together the chromosomes pair up with each other and form a baby. Mechanism of fusion of Egg and sperm in human The fusion of egg cell and sperm cell to produced zygot . The fertilization brigs male and female gametes together and produce diploid zygot,It also activates the egg in the beginning of embryo.The fertilization occur .…

    • 1133 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Certain people may be pro-choice because they are not given the big picture about what is going to happen to the unborn baby, they may in fact have their innocence taken advantage of, simply because they were not fully informed. There are two main sides to this issue, and that is either the pro-choice side, or the pro-life side. Pro-life is the idea and belief that no matter what development stage a baby is in, it should be allowed to live, whereas pro-choice means that aborting a baby is alright for people to do. After examining the following evidence people may see that pro-life is a better option to pro-choice. The following articles will prove how some people choose to be pro-choice because they don’t even want to listen to the other side, and when morality is brought into the argument, pro-life seems to be the more appealing selection.…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Moral Status Theory

    • 1124 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Maris on the other hand felt that the embryo is human life and is to be valued. Dr. Wilson indicates subjective hypothesis to perceive premature birth as a conceivable choice, because the hatchling does not have moral status. The baby can't justify or decide, in the matter of why it isn't given good status. Dr. Wilson is utilizing affectional hypothesis, because as Jessica's Doctor, he has an ethical commitment to clarify all choices, great or awful. The ethical status of the embryo could be impacted whichever way considering Dr. Wilson's emotions on premature birth as he is Jessica's…

    • 1124 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The committee states that the, “embryo merits respect as a form of human life, but not the same level of respect accorded to an individual,” (Kristol and Cohen). This can be translated to mean that the embryo should be respected in its abilities to develop further, but should not be abused. That respect does not extend to treating it as a living person. The question of ethics on this issue brings up many pro-life supporters, which are against abortion. The idea of abortion is applied in the sense that the embryo is fully a human being and therefore may not be killed.…

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Is Human Cloning Wrong

    • 2012 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Human cloning for reproductive and therapeutic methods is a controversial subject and in using and looking the issue of human cloning from the perspective of consequentialism theory, I believe that using the perspective of consequentialism theory will result in human cloning not being morally wrong. One reason using consequentialist theory that human cloning is not wrong is that parental demands of children would not change because the child is a clone, parental demands vary from parent to parent and the same would apply to clones. A second reason why cloning would be okay using the consequentialist theory is the idea that enhancement of human is good for society because it would offer a better state of humanity. A third reason why consequentialist…

    • 2012 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mr. Krimsky argued in support that genetic modification should be prohibited which I would have to agree with. Although, being able to remove any gene that would hold an inherited disease from either the mother or father is a very astonishing, altering with other enhancements such as heightened intelligence, strength, and etc. just doesn't sound right to me. In my opinion, a child is a gift to the parents and it shouldn't be altered with. They should love it anyway or form it comes in.…

    • 2267 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However Fletcher disregard this arguing that the only moral absolutes is to “love thy neighbour as thyself.” Fletcher does not entirely disregard these moral absolutes that Kant values so highly, such as the 10 commandments. Instead Fletcher tells us that if the situations demands us to, we must set them aside in the pursuit of agape love. Therefore when considering this principle in relation to embryo research as long as the decision made in regards to embryo research is the one chosen out of agape love, then it can be argued that Bentham would see no problem in this.…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Debunking Ethical Realism

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    FitzPatrick argues that such forces do not stand in the way of our grasping moral facts, and in doing so sketches his own view of realism. Foremost in his view is that we are capable of grasping moral truths. It is this grasp that debunking arguments contend is impossible, whether because our mental capacities and moral beliefs are distorted by evolution or by something else. But FitzPatrick says that evolution does not necessarily distort our capacity to grasp moral reality. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that we evolved mechanisms (such as cooperation) that both allow us to live longer and allow us to form a correct understanding of morality (17-18).…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays