PDA

View Full Version : The Ethics of Cloning and What Gives Us Our Humanity



KC
03-20-2013, 08:15 PM
Recently began reading Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go, a fantastic piece that delves deep into the questions of what makes a person human and deserving of treatment as a human. Without giving too much away about the book for anyone interested in reading it (it's also a major motion picture, if you'd prefer to watch it but I haven't seen it), the premise is that clones are raised in order to extract benefits from them for general society. This society has decided that genetic clones of humans are not deserving of the same treatment as ordinary people, yet when they are confronted with the clones as children many people have trouble facing the fact that these children are simply being raised for exploitation.

Ishiguro's stance seems to be that the ability and urge to create and to love are the defining features of humanity. What do you think gives us our humanity? Would genetic clones of people be deserving of the same rights as everyone else in a given society, assuming that the society already maintains that there are some equal rights all people have in common? Is it ethical to clone a person?

Captain Obvious
03-20-2013, 08:17 PM
From a religious standpoint, yes.

From a scientific standpoint, no.

KC
03-20-2013, 08:18 PM
From a religious standpoint, yes.

From a scientific standpoint, no.

What question are you answering?

Captain Obvious
03-20-2013, 08:25 PM
The very last one.


Is it ethical to clone a person?

We don't have homogenous ethics standards, so it depends really on who you ask.

KC
03-20-2013, 08:28 PM
The very last one.



We don't have homogenous ethics standards, so it depends really on who you ask.

Right, that's sort of what I meant. So from your point of view, which ethical interpretation should we take? I don't really know but my gut tells me that it's wrong, not that I can really articulate why.

Captain Obvious
03-20-2013, 08:30 PM
Personally?

On one hand I appreciate the scientific approach. Genetically modifying the life cycle to eliminate cancer, deformities and other shit like that but you know it will turn towards "I want my baby to have blue eyes and big junk".

Is there anything wrong with that? Take out religious ethical objections and really the answer is no.

But I understand your being creeped out by this, so am I. Not so much creeped out, but I'm more old fashioned in this respect.

KC
03-20-2013, 08:42 PM
Personally?

On one hand I appreciate the scientific approach. Genetically modifying the life cycle to eliminate cancer, deformities and other shit like that but you know it will turn towards "I want my baby to have blue eyes and big junk".

Is there anything wrong with that? Take out religious ethical objections and really the answer is no.

But I understand your being creeped out by this, so am I. Not so much creeped out, but I'm more old fashioned in this respect.

In the book I brought up in the OP, the clones are raised so their organs may be harvested. (whited out, again, for anyone who doesn't want to read spoilers). Now, there is clearly a world of difference between that and simply genetically modifying life to increase the quality of life, but where do we draw the line? Is it OK to exploit a few against their own will in order to increase quality of the life for the many? From a religious standpoint, since clones are created by man, rather than by God, does a clone have a soul? Without a soul, would a clone deserve the same considerations we have for others?

At this point I'm just going off on tangents and questioning.

Captain Obvious
03-20-2013, 08:49 PM
No - that's a good point.

If you're agnostic or atheist, what does the concept of a soul matter if you want blue eyes or big funbags?

But if you're a "cloned" person, what does that do to your psyche? Your parents wanted you to have blue eyes, so you do. Undoubtedly people who have attractive physical qualities always want something that they now deem more attractive than they already have - it's human nature. And if this person was genetically modified, why can't it be re-modified? What if it will be possible?

I just see problems exponentially emerging from the "solutions" that we are designing. Again, it's our tendency to do just this.

Mister D
03-20-2013, 09:00 PM
In the book I brought up in the OP, the clones are raised so their organs may be harvested. (whited out, again, for anyone who doesn't want to read spoilers). Now, there is clearly a world of difference between that and simply genetically modifying life to increase the quality of life, but where do we draw the line? Is it OK to exploit a few against their own will in order to increase quality of the life for the many? From a religious standpoint, since clones are created by man, rather than by God, does a clone have a soul? Without a soul, would a clone deserve the same considerations we have for others?

At this point I'm just going off on tangents and questioning.

IOW, why aren't human beings just another commodity? The question of inherent human dignity and its logical basis is an extremely serious one. We best tread carefully.

Pete7469
03-20-2013, 09:06 PM
IOW, why aren't human beings just another commodity? The question of inherent human dignity and its logical basis is an extremely serious one. We best tread carefully.

The ruling class already seems to regard humans as a resource to be managed without regards to individual rights. I doubt they would have any ethical issues with growing humans for whatever perverse purpose one can devise.

KC
03-20-2013, 09:14 PM
No - that's a good point.

If you're agnostic or atheist, what does the concept of a soul matter if you want blue eyes or big funbags?

But if you're a "cloned" person, what does that do to your psyche? Your parents wanted you to have blue eyes, so you do. Undoubtedly people who have attractive physical qualities always want something that they now deem more attractive than they already have - it's human nature. And if this person was genetically modified, why can't it be re-modified? What if it will be possible?

I just see problems exponentially emerging from the "solutions" that we are designing. Again, it's our tendency to do just this.

Right- cloned people don't have parents in the traditional sense. 100% of their genetic material comes from one individual, so a cloned person brought into our world would have no way of feeling like (s)he is a part of the society, because in the realest sense they have no parents. Not just that their parents died, or were once living but are no longer living, but they are totally parent-less, and therefore are excluded from society's basic institution.

oceanloverOH
03-20-2013, 09:17 PM
This topic has a very thin line between ethical and not-ethical, IMO. I would love to see cloning perfected to replace lost, wasted, or diseased organs or body parts. No genetic twiddling involved, just take some of MY appropriate cells and grow ME a new arm, because I lost the original in battle. A personal choice, to have an exact copy made from my personal body cells, ONLY. Beyond that, when you start twiddling with genetic stuff like blue eyes and big junk that the original person did not have....or trying to actually re-create life....then it becomes unethical, tampering with God's design.

KC
03-20-2013, 09:18 PM
IOW, why aren't human beings just another commodity? The question of inherent human dignity and its logical basis is an extremely serious one. We best tread carefully.

Right, it's definitely a touchy subject. I think that it is either a religious ideal or an arbitrary assigned one, but without religion there doesn't seem to be any innate reason why human dignity should be respected. Mind you that is not a compelling argument for belief, but an argument for the advantages of religious belief. If we're being honest with ourselves we cannot base our beliefs on philosophical convenience, they must be sincere.

Chloe
03-20-2013, 09:20 PM
I can see why maybe some parents would want to make physical adjustments to their baby before it is born if there is some type of known defect or physical problem, but overall I kind of think that if you have a baby it should be the way that it is and not the way that you adjust it to be. I definitely don't agree with like a designer baby type thing.

oceanloverOH
03-20-2013, 09:23 PM
I can see why maybe some parents would want to make physical adjustments to their baby before it is born if there is some type of known defect or physical problem, but overall I kind of think that if you have a baby it should be the way that it is and not the way that you adjust it to be. I definitely don't agree with like a designer baby type thing.

That's my point.....personal COPIES grown of extremities and organs (parts, not people) would not be unethical. MODIFICATION is a whole other ball of wax.

Peter1469
03-20-2013, 09:24 PM
But what happens when people start paying to have a smart gene put into their fetus? If you don't you might be regulating your child to the bottom of the class. This sort of genetic tinkering has unknown consequences.

Peter1469
03-20-2013, 09:26 PM
But what happens when people start paying to have a smart gene put into their fetus? If you don't you might be regulating your child to the bottom of the class. This sort of genetic tinkering has unknown consequences.

And not to "change" the topic, but this is what Lance Armstrong did.... Everyone else was doing it, and he wanted to win.

Captain Obvious
03-20-2013, 09:28 PM
But what happens when people start paying to have a smart gene put into their fetus? If you don't you might be regulating your child to the bottom of the class. This sort of genetic tinkering has unknown consequences.

Exactly.

Can you imagine smart liberals?




Yeah, I know... "serious discussion".

Chris
03-20-2013, 10:10 PM
This is a difficult question.

If man, as I believe, is incapable of deigning/engineering economies, governments, without doing but harm, then how could he ever design/engineer life?

And yet this could lead to discoveries to cure diseases and ease suffering.

Captain Obvious
03-20-2013, 10:12 PM
This is a difficult question.

If man, as I believe, is incapable of deigning/engineering economies, governments, without doing but harm, then how could he ever design/engineer life?

And yet this could lead to discoveries to cure diseases and ease suffering.

Politically driven man... ect.

Not scientifically driven man, however once the science is developed - who manipulates it then?

Dr. Who
03-20-2013, 10:21 PM
In the book I brought up in the OP, the clones are raised so their organs may be harvested. (whited out, again, for anyone who doesn't want to read spoilers). Now, there is clearly a world of difference between that and simply genetically modifying life to increase the quality of life, but where do we draw the line? Is it OK to exploit a few against their own will in order to increase quality of the life for the many? From a religious standpoint, since clones are created by man, rather than by God, does a clone have a soul? Without a soul, would a clone deserve the same considerations we have for others?

At this point I'm just going off on tangents and questioning.
I think a cloned child is just as likely to have a soul as anyone else. It's not like anyone has an absolute definition of when or how the soul is developed, or in fact what it is. Is it when the cells divide - well they divide with a clone as well. Is it at birth or sometime prior? The clone is still not excluded.

Chris
03-20-2013, 10:24 PM
Politically driven man... ect.

Not scientifically driven man, however once the science is developed - who manipulates it then?

ScIence were as value free as it's supposed to be.

KC
03-20-2013, 10:25 PM
I think a cloned child is just as likely to have a soul as anyone else. It's not like anyone has an absolute definition of when or how the soul is developed, or in fact what it is. Is it when the cells divide - well they divide with a clone as well. Is it at birth or sometime prior? The clone is still not excluded.

I meant in more of a religious sense of the soul, which I would assume is uniquely created by God in many religious traditions. But if God creates man and gives him a unique soul, would a clone also have a unique soul?

Dr. Who
03-20-2013, 10:32 PM
I meant in more of a religious sense of the soul, which I would assume is uniquely created by God in many religious traditions. But if God creates man and gives him a unique soul, would a clone also have a unique soul?
OK, a religious argument. If God created man and all men are God's children, and God gave man the ability to create a clone, would He deprive his grandchild a soul?

Greenridgeman
03-20-2013, 10:36 PM
Personally?

On one hand I appreciate the scientific approach. Genetically modifying the life cycle to eliminate cancer, deformities and other shit like that but you know it will turn towards "I want my baby to have blue eyes and big junk".

Is there anything wrong with that? Take out religious ethical objections and really the answer is no.




But I understand your being creeped out by this, so am I. Not so much creeped out, but I'm more old fashioned in this respect.



Children are aborted every day simply for being of the wrong gender.

I am thinking there would be drone clones, and clones of egomaniacs, clones of lost children etc.

Hard to say how each type of clone would be treated

KC
03-20-2013, 10:36 PM
OK, a religious argument. If God created man and all men are God's children, and God gave man the ability to create a clone, would He deprive his grandchild a soul?

Interesting. I think you would be right in this case, if there is a God, and if that God created man with a unique soul, there is no line of reasoning that would argue that God would deny a soul to a clone of a man who was created artificially. Now, that clone is supposed to be an exact biological replica of another man, so should his soul be unique, or should his soul also be a replica?

Dr. Who
03-20-2013, 10:48 PM
Interesting. I think you would be right in this case, if there is a God, and if that God created man with a unique soul, there is no line of reasoning that would argue that God would deny a soul to a clone of a man who was created artificially. Now, that clone is supposed to be an exact biological replica of another man, so should his soul be unique, or should his soul also be a replica?
I don't think a soul can be replicated, not that I have any scientific basis for that statement! The soul is not, according to any theory on the subject, a product of the body, thus the source is external. If the source is external, then it can't be replicated by man.

Mister D
03-20-2013, 11:12 PM
OK, a religious argument. If God created man and all men are God's children, and God gave man the ability to create a clone, would He deprive his grandchild a soul?

What other argument can one make when speaking of souls? Modern man is in deep doo doo pardon my French.

Mister D
03-20-2013, 11:55 PM
Right, it's definitely a touchy subject. I think that it is either a religious ideal or an arbitrary assigned one, but without religion there doesn't seem to be any innate reason why human dignity should be respected. Mind you that is not a compelling argument for belief, but an argument for the advantages of religious belief. If we're being honest with ourselves we cannot base our beliefs on philosophical convenience, they must be sincere.

Right. There isn't any innate reason why human dignity should be respected. That is one of the reasons I find the anthropology of Rabbi Paul particularly pertinent in our day.

On the contrary, I find it to be very compelling argument for belief. These are ultimately questions that have to be answered. One cannot be "agnostic" about them. To be agnostic is answer in the negative.

KC
03-21-2013, 12:10 AM
Right. There isn't any innate reason why human dignity should be respected. That is one of the reasons I find the anthropology of Rabbi Paul particularly pertinent in our day.

On the contrary, I find it to be very compelling argument for belief. These are ultimately questions that have to be answered. One cannot be "agnostic" about them. To be agnostic is answer in the negative.

They are questions that have to be answered, but the first duty is to be honest with yourself. Ultimately what you believe cannot be based on what is convenient. it has to be based on real belief. This is why Pascal's wager isn't a very compelling case. It's not a rational topic, you cannot reason your way to a conclusion.

Mister D
03-21-2013, 08:43 AM
They are questions that have to be answered, but the first duty is to be honest with yourself. Ultimately what you believe cannot be based on what is convenient. it has to be based on real belief. This is why Pascal's wager isn't a very compelling case. It's not a rational topic, you cannot reason your way to a conclusion.

Pascal's point was that you must wager. You are already in the game. It's not a matter of sincere belief or insincere belief. The latter is no belief at all.

Chris
03-21-2013, 08:52 AM
Pascal's point was that you must wager. You are already in the game. It's not a matter of sincere belief or insincere belief. The latter is no belief at all.

Then it seems Pascal assumes what he must prove, he merely begs the question.

Mister D
03-21-2013, 08:57 AM
Then it seems Pascal assumes what he must prove, he merely begs the question.

It can't be proved either way but you still must wager (i.e. decide). It's not so much an exercise in logic as it is an exercise in living.

Chris
03-21-2013, 09:00 AM
It can't be proved either way but you still must wager (i.e. decide). It's not so much an exercise in logic as it is an exercise in living.

Right, as I see it we're all agnostic, not knowing God, but still choose to believe or not. But the Wager is often mistaken as a proof of God, which it's not, there are none.

Mister D
03-21-2013, 09:12 AM
Right, as I see it we're all agnostic, not knowing God, but still choose to believe or not. But the Wager is often mistaken as a proof of God, which it's not, there are none.

Yeah, I see it referred to that way all the time. It's a misunderstanding of what Pascal was trying to say.

KC
03-21-2013, 12:34 PM
Pascal's point was that you must wager. You are already in the game. It's not a matter of sincere belief or insincere belief. The latter is no belief at all.

Pascal opresented it as thought there were two options, as though one could make a rational choice between belief in God and non-belief in God. In reality there are a multitude of choices (religious doctrines) and none of them is more likely than any of the others, it's all culturally determined.

Dr. Who
03-25-2013, 07:01 PM
Pascal opresented it as thought there were two options, as though one could make a rational choice between belief in God and non-belief in God. In reality there are a multitude of choices (religious doctrines) and none of them is more likely than any of the others, it's all culturally determined.
To a large degree, but there are those who choose other religions because they appeal to them philosophically. There have been many converts to Buddhism who have chosen it because of its lack of a deity.