Blog 4- How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?
I have to agree with Tooley on most of his points; I feel that the deal-breaker in dealing with human cloning comes from the fact that whatever we would do with our clones would also be done with our biological siblings. If a clone was to be made, he/she would most likely behave and be treated just like every other human, he/she would not be a second class citizen and the advantages of having them around could outweigh the negatives. If a person needed a certain organ, like a kidney, they would have a guaranteed match. I am not advocating using the clone as an "organ farm", but having a person who would be a perfect match could save lives.
Looking at those who claim that human cloning would bring about a society like in "Brave New World", you seem to forget that there would be some limitations placed on the process. For the situation to grow completely out of control, you would have to ignore the fact that people would stop it if it became a problem; thinking that people would just allow the world to be turned into something like in Aldous Huxley's book is naive.
The issue of human cloning didn't really effect my principles, because I can only hope that even when this science does become available, the people who will use it will make the right choices of what to do with it. Past that, I really have no say in what is going to happen with human cloning, so I see no reason to worry about it.
This week I commented on Evon's blog at http://evonsommerville.blogspot.com/.
No comments:
Post a Comment