Philosophy: The Ethics of Human Cloning
In order to make a fully justified decision on whether human cloning is ethical or not,
one must be exposed to the background of the subject. To start, a clone is an exact replica of
an organism, cell, or gene. The process itself is done asexually with the use of a cell from the
original human. It is then placed inside a female capable of bearing a child and is then born
as a clone. Along with this comes questions of whether or not it is right to clone a human
being based on different facts and opinions of small groups or communities(Dudley 11).
The technology of cloning is not quite developed enough for a doctor to be certain that
an experiment will be successful. In Scotland, the first sheep was cloned and was named
Dolly. It took over 250 tries before they were successful in creating the clone. When news of
this reached America, immediately polls showed that ninety percent of Americans were
against the idea of cloning humans. Those who support cloning research replied by saying the
public based their opinions on fallacies of the news media and, therefore, could not
comprehend the whole picture(Farnsworth).
Those in favor of cloning might say it can push forward medical research. For
example, with cloning technology it may be possible to learn how to replace old cells with
new ones. This could lead to a longer life for each individual. Also, with enough research
scientists could create clones to act as donors. Some scientists say that human cloning may
eventually reverse heart attacks. This accomplishment would take place by injecting healthy
heart cells into damaged heart tissue.
In addition, cloning could help improve family life. For example, if a couple lost a
child they loved dearly and could not reproduce naturally, cloning that child could be an
alternative. In this way, the parents would have the chance to love the clone just as much as
On the other hand, those against cloning would say that it is wrong for a doctor to harm
a clone. If this were allowed, eventually we would compromise the individual. Clones would
become second-class citizens. Cloning strips humanity from natural reproduction by leaving a
clone with only one parent. In addition, there would be a decline in genetic diversity. In
other words, if some day we all have the same genetic makeup and lose the technology of
cloning, we would have to resort back to natural reproduction. This would cause problems
because it has the same effect as inbreeding.
In the same way, clones would feel like they had lost their individuality. For example,
their genetic makeup would be known.
Also, there could be negative psychological effects that will impact the family and
society. For instance, if a clone finds out that s/he has no biological father it may suppress the
clone’s feeling of equality among other naturally born people. Also, there is a chance that the
mother or the clone may become sterile. Among all of these there are too many risks for the
bearing mothers and embryos. Eventually, it would turn into a routine to destroy human
embryos in the process of cloning(“The Ethics of Cloning”).
According to Latter-Day Saints, cloning does not respect the fact that humans have
souls and it robs clones of their humanity. God intended the power to create humans to be
practiced between a man and a woman in the boundaries of marriage. Do otherwise is taking
the work of God into your own hands. This means that humans lack the authority to make
decisions about creating or destroying a life. In addition, humans do not have enough
knowledge or power to control outcomes of certain events (Dudley 56).
However, others believe religion has no place in the debate. They argue, interpreters of
the Bible can not agree on what actions God would allow to be done with justified means. In
addition, the Koran or the Bible have limits 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