Ethical Debate On Human Cloning

Ethical Debate On Human copyToday, erudition is developing at lightning speed. Todays science allows us to do many things that we would redeem appe ared impossible a few decades ago, such as re-create. Firstly, what is re-create? Cloning is a act upon of producing genetically identical individuals, where one produces copies of cells or desoxyribonucleic acid fragments. But beyond the scientific level, the re-create issue has been controversial since moral philosophy and morality on the same day when the idea was developed, there is this nearly 100 years, and honorable challenges raised intimately pitying copy are several levels. Some objections relate to safety of human cloning experiments, beca single-valued function the process is far from being regarded as infallible, and it raises mostly moral and ethical objections that go well beyond issues of safety and scientific concerns. Indeed, we can question the motives of human cloning, whether some reasons are more acce ptable than others, but withal about the likely impact that this will lead to humanity. Is cloning virtuously acceptable?On the one hand, tally to the theories of Greek philosopher Aristotle, it would be current to say that human cloning is unethical because of the ridiculous methods are active to get there. Indeed, many methods developed and the many uses of cloning technologies destroy lives and do nonhing but harm. For example, it took just over 277 tests before the scientists can create the first clone. Moreover, the conjecture of naturalism ethics, methods of cloning are not the leave alone of an action according to the order of nature, in other words, cloning is not consistent with human nature, because is not natural for humans to be cloned. Moreover, if cloning ever becomes a reality in the near future, it will be a reasonable way to contribute to the good of humanity. Unreasonable use of cloning for the purpose of an individualistic happiness could lead to irreversib le consequences on humans and night club.On the other hand, if we look at the ethical theories of philosopher lavatory Stuart hoagy, human cloning would be beneficial as long as the number of people who benefit outweighs the number of people who suffer. In fact, according to Mill, the calculation of the moral value of any action is the result of the plus 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 gibe 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. According to the theory of utilitarianism, Mill overly believes that actions must be judged on how they promote human happiness for the greatest number of people, and 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 transfigure for a small group of less fortunate people is reassert because they are not the consequences that must guide us, but rather the purport which is hidden behind our action. In short, cloning is morally acceptable to society because it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of men.Finally, contrary to Mill, Immanuel Kant would disagree with cloning because we use people as a means to an end, even if it is to fulfill or to benefit a greater number of people. According to the normal of universalization, any action is not morally acceptable if it harms the interests of humanity, or if it leads to the demise thereof. For example, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible that all humans on the artificial satellite 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 inevi tably 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 crystalize a clone in order to create a high-performance race, having clear expectations about the personality and physical abilities of the individual or psychological, would overthrow 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 come through organs can then be transplanted into the donor DNA without risk of exposure of rejection, he admits that creating a clone simply as a acknowledgment 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 indeed comply with the unhomogeneous princi ples of Kant and makes cloning morally unacceptable.In conclusion, the ethical theories of various philosophers therefore lead us to have many different views on this new scientific approach so controversial. While the proponents of human cloning argue that the initial negative reaction is simply a everyday response of man had something new and unknown, it is clear that the ethical debate on human cloning is not the point of fade. It remains nonetheless that cloning would violate a lot and very widespread belief about the individuality and the freedom of every human right, because what is the value of a human being is its uniqueness. The living being is unique and indeterminable.