Graduate studies at Western
Poiesis and Praxis 1 (1):17-33 (2001)
|Abstract||It is widely believed that reproductive human cloning is morally wrong and should be prohibited because it infringes on human uniqueness, individuality, freedom and personal identity. The philosophical and ethical discussion has, however, shown that it is far more difficult than might initially be supposed to sustain arguments against cloning on these and related grounds. More recently, a potentially viable argument, initially put forward by Hans Jonas, has regained new prominence. The argument holds that cloning is wrong because it denies the clone an `open future', that is, the ability to freely shape her own personal identity, life plans, self-chosen goals, etc. After a critical exposition of the argument, I argue as follows: If one understands the Open Future Argument as an argument about the welfare of the cloned child, then it cannot show that cloning harms the child in a person-affecting sense of harming and benefiting. If, on the other hand, one understands the argument in a non-person-affecting sense, then some, but not all, reproductive cloning decisions can be shown to be wrong. The argument does not show, however, that cloning ought to be prohibited by law. While cloning, like other widely accepted reproductive decisions, will sometimes fail to minimize harm to `the child', such acts â to the extent that they do not constitute harm in a person-affecting sense â ought to be tolerated by proponents of the Open Future Argument. Attempts to prohibit reproductive choices on the basis that they are not optimal, will undermine the same set of values that the Open Future Argument seeks to uphold|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joyce C. Havstad (2010). Human Reproductive Cloning: A Conflict of Liberties. Bioethics 24 (2):71-77.
Robert Lane (2006). Safety, Identity and Consent: A Limited Defense of Reproductive Human Cloning. Bioethics 20 (3):125–135.
C. F. Gethmann & F. Thiele (2001). Moral Arguments Against the Cloning of Humans. Poiesis and Praxis 1 (1):35-46.
Yitzchok Breitowitz (2002). What's So Bad About Human Cloning? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (4):325-341.
Sandra Shapshay (2012). Procreative Liberty, Enhancement and Commodification in the Human Cloning Debate. Health Care Analysis 20 (4):356-366.
Max J. Latona (2004). New Technologies, Old Distinctions. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:277-288.
S. Camporesi & L. Bortolotti (2008). Reproductive Cloning in Humans and Therapeutic Cloning in Primates: Is the Ethical Debate Catching Up with the Recent Scientific Advances? Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):e15-e15.
Timothy Caulfield (2003). Human Cloning Laws, Human Dignity and the Poverty of the Policy Making Dialogue. BMC Medical Ethics 4 (1):1-7.
Michael Blome-Tillman, Reproductive Cloning, Genetic Engineering and the Autonomy of the Child: The Moral Agent and the Open Future.
Kathinka Evers (1999). The Identity of Clones. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (1):67 – 76.
Jaime Ahlberg & Harry Brighouse (2011). An Argument Against Cloning. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (4):539-566.
Matteo Mameli (2007). Reproductive Cloning, Genetic Engineering and the Autonomy of the Child: The Moral Agent and the Open Future. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2):87-93.
Richard Greene (2004). Does the Non-Identity Problem Block a Class of Arguments Against Cloning? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (1):95-101.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads25 ( #55,684 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?