Kantian Ethics concerning human Cloning Essay

copy is a procedure conceived to notion in the new-fangled 1960s, but it is only recently that it was fully understood and that scientists have started to r turn upine out how to victorfully copy the transmitt equal to(p) stem of one being to an separate. Since science already knows how to do this, the only problems and obstacles that remains is efficiency and the success ratio of each operation. The re-create knead consists of taking the nucleus of an organism, and placing it, on with the DNA that contains all the genetic material, in place of the nucleus of the phalanx egg. The egg hence nominates an embryo and matures into the same exact copy, at least genetically, as the original organism. Already done on mammals, re-create is something that can be ext block offed to utilize pieces as subjects. In the future it provide be wholly possible to create merciful knockoffs to serve whatever purpose they were conceived for. However, presently there atomic number 18 m either ethical issues surrounding copy and there are problems about the implications of the accustom of clon for the purpose of medicine. This issue plagues us so much that the changeless objections of bioethicists and political and religious leaders have ca mappingd the US Government to intimate a ban on all research concerning gentlemans gentlemans cloning until a conclusion is reached on the honourable and ethical aspects of the process. (Macer, 2)In this paper, I will discuss how Kantian views and ethics help us realize whether it is morally ethical to clone for the purpose of bettering our lives. Two points have to be distinguished. How exactly will human cloning aid medicine and society, and the implications of human worth and dignity when applied to clones.Kantian ethics were proposed by Immanuel Kant in his critical writing of the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Kant argued that non- sagacious things have only a relative valuate as nitty-gritty and are c onsequently called things. sharp beings, on the other hand, are called soulfulnesss because their spirit already marks them out as residuums in themselves for unless this is so, nothing at all of absolute value would be found anywhere. (Britannica, 473) All persons are able to alter their behavior to what they reason to be moral behavior, but in victimisation this capacity that all humans possess, they must(prenominal)(prenominal) act upon a compressed imperative to spread over all uniformly situatedpeople equally. They must uphold to their moral maxims and ready their actions universal law, extending it equally to all persons. Kant reformulates this humor and states that we should act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never entirely as a means, but always at the same times as an end. (Britannica, 472) This means that we should never use people as only a means, and that because all persons have inti mate human worth they should all be considered as ends in themselves.Kants vision involves only persons or rational agents. If no person or rationality is present past it can be argued that the agent is simply a thing. Something that cannot rationalize and is not conscious of its existence cannot be argued as having human worth. So it is wholly possible, through some applications of science, to create headless clones that are not fully developed in the forebrain and who accordingly cannot rationalize or exist consciously. (Friedman, 3) If able to be kept liveborn after their inventionion in order to mature, these clones can be apply for harvesting of their organs for various medical purposes. Kant would not object to these kinds of clones because his concept of rationality is respected in accordance to the categorical imperative. If only rational agents are to be used as an end, and if no rationality exists, then whatever is left can be used only as a means to further some goa l with no ethical wrongdoing involved.Developing a headless clone involves a process that prevents rationality and consciousness from ever being formed. This can be paralleled to other procedures that involve the same block of formation of rationality, particularly any form of birth visualize. Not allowing the breeding of headless clones because it is immoral makes any diversity of birth control thus immoral too, because they also involve the preventing of the development of consciousness and rational thought. (Friedman, 4) If this imperative were to be upheld to a moral maxim, then we would need to be consistent in our actions and ban birth control just as human cloning is banned now.However, if human clones are developed as persons (with a whole brain andfully function in every aspect) then our perspectives need to be changed to take a to a greater extent moral view. Is it possible to morally clone a human to become an end in themselves? Suppose the case of a nestlingless fam ily where the mother is unable to conceive for whatever reasons. Somatic cell cloning can provide the family with a way to obtain a child through surrogate birth. (Friedman, 2) Even though copying the genetic composition of one parent and making the child a copy of them is slightly strange, it is understandable from the parents point of view. If they are unable to naturally conceive, they should still be given some sort of chance to have a child. copy gives the parents this chance to have a child and have a somewhat normal family as an outcome. In this case the clone is treated as an end. He will grow up to be healthy and hopefully be regarded the same as a naturally conceived child. When he grows up, the clone will not denounce his existence. If asked the question of whether he would have sooner not been born, the child would most likely thank cloning for his conception.The similar can be said for a clone that is used as a means for something but eventually becoming an end in th emselves. Suppose the case of a family where a serious disease plagues an alive child and that only a specialized blood type or a certain type of bone marrow will bring through him. If no donors are available, the childs only ticket to natural selection force be a clone. Using the same genetic composition, his replicate can be cloned in order to save his life. If this cloned twin is afterwards discarded, because he no longer serves a purpose or if he dies during the transfusion, this would in turn be highly unethical and immoral. However, if the parents exercise the human right of the clone as a person to exist, they are playacting in accordance with the categorical imperative as stated above. They are extending the moral maxim to a universal law, and are treating the clone as a person, justly. The clone then becomes not simply a means to save a childs life but an end in themselves also. The clones rationality and consciousness is not jeopardized. And in the same way as abov e, the clone would be thankful for having rescue someone with his existence and would not regret his life.The immediately foreseeable problems with cloning for the purpose of childbirth might be seen when parents want to dictate the genetic makeup oftheir child. They might not only want to eradicate genes that make a person susceptible to certain diseases, but they also might want to eliminate other unfavorable genes. Genes that control a persons susceptibility to violence or other emotional factors, or genes that control a persons appearance, such as height, vibrissa and eye color and physical condition. In this way, parents might be able to mold genetically superior children to their liking. This would is most probable to eliminate singularity and individuality. There would be no randomness or pureness of nature in humans. Everything would be similar because certain specific qualities would be to a greater extent favorable and popular. Also gene superiority would label clones a s of high value and might cause discrimination based solely on ones genetic makeup. Only through total anonymity would this be preventable, and this condition is impossible.This problem can be directly tie in to the categorical imperative so crucial to Kant and Kantian ethics. Because morality must extended to be universal, it is imperative that both the superior clones and regularly genetically endowed humans are treated with similar regard. This however would see to not be the case the clones would always be favored in any situation. Therefore, this treatment would be immoral, as it would be immoral to clone human persons for such purposes, which are based only on vacancy of people and discrimination of less favored genes.Many ethical issues and moral aspects of human cloning must be observed to get a larger picture of its implications. Kantianism gives us a way of differentiating in which situations will cloning be ethical or, the opposite, immoral. However, Kantian ethics is pretty specific in its situations and it cant give a much more general and broad understanding of the ethics of cloning. It doesnt tell us what to do, it only tells us whether something is moral or not. Kantianism is not a make pass of morals but it is a very good understanding of them.BibliographyFriedman, Dan. Cloning Macalester Journal of Philosophy Vol. 9, 1999Gardner, Jennifer. To Clone or Not to Clonehttp//pages.prodigy.net/darvi/clone.htm (12 Feb, 2001)Kant, Immanuel encyclopaedia Britannica In Depth Knowledge 1999 ed.Macer, Darryl R.J., Ph.D. Ethical Challenges as we approach the end of the Human Genome Project. N.p n.p. 2000Ruse, Michael, and Sheppard, Aryne. Cloning Responsible Science or Technomadness?Prometheus Books, December 2000