Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This came up in a ethics class I took.

"Is it ethical to clone humans?"

My answer was yes. Human cloning should be allowed. Most of the responses were along the lines of

"No!" or something along those lines.

One person brought up an interesting point.

"Cloning them for what purpose?"

There were several reasons we came up with.

1.) Security. It is difficult to assassinate someone if there is eight of him. The problem here is that is lowers the value of human life.

2.) Sexual Purposes. Everyone can have their own copy of their dream girl / guy! This would also raise the issue of copyrighting human beings.

3.) Medical. With clones on hand, there would never be an issue with lack of organ or blood supply. These clones would be kept in stasis for their entire lives, being removed only to be killed for organ harvest. What happens here is the same issue with number one, it reduces the value of human life.

Now, cloning was a hot topic, a few years back. It has kind of fallen out of the spotlight. It is entirely possible to clone a human being. The questions I am asking Dakka are as follows.

1.) Do you think human cloning is wrong? If so, why?

2.) Would you allow yourself to be cloned? Why or why not?

3.) If you answered yes to the above question; Which of the above purposes would you prefer to be cloned for?


My personal answers are as follows.

1.) No, cloning is a field that should be explored further. Clones could be a valuable advantage for the human race.

2.) Probably, but only once. I do not want a dozen me's running around.

3.) Medical. It would be handy to have a spare set of organs just hanging around, just for me.


So, what say you, Dakka?

If you are talking about cloning a whole person and letting them grow I would say all the uses you have described would be wrong. You've created a new person and it should have the same rights as any other person. Other than that I would say cloning in itself is perfectly fine.

1) Congratulations! You just recieved a ticket to the Island!

2) I would expect that if a cloned human were to function and act like a normal human they would be treated like a human with full human rights. It matters little if they look exactly like someone else, this mirror of appearance should not infringe on their right to life and other basic rights.

3) Seeing as 2) demands full human rights, there really is no point in cloning people as we can't take advantage of them, in fact the last thing we need are more humans popping out from somewhere. Animals on the other hand...

There are a lot of people who don't believe in human rights, or in rights for only select groups of people.

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Congratulations! You just recieved a ticket to the Island!

2) I would expect that if a cloned human were to function and act like a normal human they would be treated like a human with full human rights. It matters little if they look exactly like someone else, this mirror of appearance should not infringe on their right to life and other basic rights.

3) Seeing as 2) demands full human rights, there really is no point in cloning people as we can't take advantage of them, in fact the last thing we need are more humans popping out from somewhere. Animals on the other hand...

Well it's always a good option for when a supervillain comes up with some mass sterilization ray and makes it so we can't have children normally. Or if we find a way to accelerate the growth of a clone and are invaded by orks and then we need to grow clones and draft them along with everyone else to fight.

Flaming_Spider wrote:1.) Security. It is difficult to assassinate someone if there is eight of him. The problem here is that is lowers the value of human life.

A two way street. It's hard to protect your own security when a copy of you can be made. Identity theft has never been so simple!

2.) Sexual Purposes. Everyone can have their own copy of their dream girl / guy! This would also raise the issue of copyrighting human beings.

This is arguably inherently unethical. Not to mention psychologically unhealthy and equivalent to slavery. A clone is still a human being.

3.) Medical. With clones on hand, there would never be an issue with lack of organ or blood supply. These clones would be kept in stasis for their entire lives, being removed only to be killed for organ harvest. What happens here is the same issue with number one, it reduces the value of human life.

Why do you need to clone a whole person? There techniques being developed that allow the cloning of specific tissues. Then you don't have to deal with the inherently unethical/ethically problematic problem of killing one person to keep another alive, especially when the person dying has the sole purpose of keeping another alive.

1.) Do you think human cloning is wrong? If so, why?

On the surface there's nothing really wrong with it. It's when you examine the implications of cloning on society, ethics, morality, and the law that it becomes so absurdly problematic that it's a ground that for now is best left untouched. That said, I don't have a problem with research in the field. I may well give way to important breakthroughs or discoveries, but the idea of cloning in mass or as a standard practice is a mass cluster

It's like walking into a 10th century western european village and screaming "hail satan god sucks." Good luck with that turning out very well...

2.) Would you allow yourself to be cloned? Why or why not?

No. I'm enough of an asshat for the world to handle More so, I don't want to deal with the problems and implications of there being two of me.

3.) If you answered yes to the above question; Which of the above purposes would you prefer to be cloned for?

I honestly see no real benefit in cloning beyond knowledge. Practically it doesn't have any uses that won't have massive consequences. Basically:

"Cloning them for what purpose?"

Whoever said this hit the nail on the head. What real purpose is there to cloning other than as a science project for the heck of a science project or as a stepping stone to some other knowledge?

BrockRitcey wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Congratulations! You just recieved a ticket to the Island!

2) I would expect that if a cloned human were to function and act like a normal human they would be treated like a human with full human rights. It matters little if they look exactly like someone else, this mirror of appearance should not infringe on their right to life and other basic rights.

3) Seeing as 2) demands full human rights, there really is no point in cloning people as we can't take advantage of them, in fact the last thing we need are more humans popping out from somewhere. Animals on the other hand...

Well it's always a good option for when a supervillain comes up with some mass sterilization ray and makes it so we can't have children normally. Or if we find a way to accelerate the growth of a clone and are invaded by orks and then we need to grow clones and draft them along with everyone else to fight.

Oh no doubt, but those scenario's also justify lots of other things. Like actually getting rid of religion.

No.

My reasoning is that cloning pertains to only the material, or physical meat vehicle, of the person involved and disregards the spiritual or ethereal aspects that make man. Until there is complete and total agreement on the spiritual face of what constitutes the mind, the true engine of the meat vehicle, both scientifically and spiritually, cloning humans is something that shouldn't be done.

To me personally, cloning humans, even those that are sick and dying of cancer or some other horrible aliment who would require a clone for treatment, is morally on par with cannibalism.

Plus, aren't there supposedly way too many people on Earth as it is?

Kilkrazy wrote:There are a lot of people who don't believe in human rights, or in rights for only select groups of people.

No(!)

Cloning of a full person, I believe, is too risky and too morally incorrect to fully justify. It brings a whole set of problems, mainly due to the fact that we'd be treating each other like cattle, and would be the cause of a human rights violation that would be worse than any other in human history.

That being said, however, if we can find a way to clone vital organs, body parts, etc. without the need for a full host body, then that would be completely justifiable. War veteran that loses an arm? Clone him an extra one and graft it on. Something go wrong with a woman's ovaries that prevents her from conceiving properly (cancer, other diseases/genetic defects?) Clone her a new set, test them for any problems, and then implant them. Cloning as a tool can be extremely useful, but the risks that come from cloning an entire person are just too much to justify in my mind. Hell, cloning animals and plants would have to be strictly regulated with heavy consequences for anyone who breaks the rules.

I just had a thought, what if it were possible to create a clone that had no functioning conceitedness, or was reduced to the most basic reptilian parts of the brain. Would it then be unethical to have for medical purposes.

I would be quite interested to know why you think it is ethical.

Flaming_Spider wrote:There were several reasons we came up with.

1.) Security. It is difficult to assassinate someone if there is eight of him. The problem here is that is lowers the value of human life.

This is a ridiculous reason. There wouldn't be eight of the person, there would be eight people with identical DNA and totally different life experiences. Even if it's TV fantasy cloning where memories and age are copied, they'll begin diverging immediately. Say it's the President. They can't all be the president at the same time, so the idea that any one of them can step in for any of the others is nonsensical.

2.) Sexual Purposes. Everyone can have their own copy of their dream girl / guy! This would also raise the issue of copyrighting human beings.

I think more importantly it raises the issue of creating someone to be raped and forced into sexual slavery. I know it isn't one of the ten commandments, but rape is wrong. Duh.

3.) Medical. With clones on hand, there would never be an issue with lack of organ or blood supply. These clones would be kept in stasis for their entire lives, being removed only to be killed for organ harvest. What happens here is the same issue with number one, it reduces the value of human life.

This is the least problematic so far. Human life has no inherent value, only sentience and desire creates value.

1.) Do you think human cloning is wrong? If so, why?

Depends on the intent. And I'm assuming you mean the scientific definition of cloning. The ethics would be way more complicated with TV fantasy cloning.

2.) Would you allow yourself to be cloned? Why or why not?

Yes, I wouldn't have an issue with being cloned to create spare parts if it was guaranteed that the clone would never become conscious. If it were a conscious clone of me I would object to its creation, unless there was some extraordinary circumstance (less than 32 humans left on Earth after cataclysm.

youbedead wrote: I just had a thought, what if it were possible to create a clone that had no functioning conceitedness, or was reduced to the most basic reptilian parts of the brain. Would it then be unethical to have for medical purposes.

Well seeing as you'd have to dabble with the clone's mind at some point I'd say no, that's not ethical.

Of course it can be ethical, have you seen that Arnie movie the 6th day?

If a 5 year old girl had deadly cancer, and they could just get her to look into a camera type thing and it could transfer all her memory into a cloned version, you could say to her "oh we can put you to sleep now for the operation and when you wake up it will be better"

Put her to sleep, whip out the clone, clone wakes up in same bed utterly unaware of any change at all, kids all better, family goes home.

Whats up with that?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote: I just had a thought, what if it were possible to create a clone that had no functioning conceitedness, or was reduced to the most basic reptilian parts of the brain. Would it then be unethical to have for medical purposes.

Well seeing as you'd have to dabble with the clone's mind at some point I'd say no, that's not ethical.

no I mean predevelopment, mess with the dna even before you start growing them, not grow em then wipe em

mattyrm wrote:If a 5 year old girl had deadly cancer, and they could just get her to look into a camera type thing and it could transfer all her memory into a cloned version, you could say to her "oh we can put you to sleep now for the operation and when you wake up it will be better"

Put her to sleep, whip out the clone, clone wakes up in same bed utterly unaware of any change at all, kids all better, family goes home.

Momento Mori

There implications with "playing god" so to speak. While there's room for special cases such as this, we must realize that if full human cloning is achieved, we must be extremely careful in how we approach it. Once we do this, what is to stop an 80 year old from getting a new younger body? What about the clone body? Would it not have a mind of its own that is essentially being erased? It's debatable depending on how you think the mind develops. Again; the implications of cloning full humans are huge. Once the technology is out there it's out there. We need to be careful with it or things could get out of hand.

youbedead wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

youbedead wrote: I just had a thought, what if it were possible to create a clone that had no functioning conceitedness, or was reduced to the most basic reptilian parts of the brain. Would it then be unethical to have for medical purposes.

Well seeing as you'd have to dabble with the clone's mind at some point I'd say no, that's not ethical.

no I mean predevelopment, mess with the dna even before you start growing them, not grow em then wipe em

I don't know if that's possible. You're basically saying that we clone the entire human body except for the brain? I think that's more akin to cloning organs, so there isn't so much of an ethical issue there.

The problem is that when you mess with DNA, you're not making a straight clone anymore, and you're bringing up the very real possibility of creating something that's incompatible with the very person you're cloning it from. DNA isn't cut and paste like you see in Jurassic Park and X-Men - the moment you change one single gene around, there's a huge chain reaction in the rest of the DNA. Sometimes it's barely noticeable and has little to no adverse reactions, but the chances that you're going to majorly feth something up with the thing you're creating is very, very high.

Even if you were able to pinpoint the exact genetic sequence to remove the higher functions of a person's brain, you're still creating a living human being to be harvested. Worse, what you're essentially suggesting is that you create a mentally slowed version of the sickly person and then harvest them for the needed organs.

DiscoVader wrote:The problem is that when you mess with DNA, you're not making a straight clone anymore, and you're bringing up the very real possibility of creating something that's incompatible with the very person you're cloning it from. DNA isn't cut and paste like you see in Jurassic Park and X-Men - the moment you change one single gene around, there's a huge chain reaction in the rest of the DNA. Sometimes it's barely noticeable and has little to no adverse reactions, but the chances that you're going to majorly feth something up with the thing you're creating is very, very high.

Even if you were able to pinpoint the exact genetic sequence to remove the higher functions of a person's brain, you're still creating a living human being to be harvested. Worse, what you're essentially suggesting is that you create a mentally slowed version of the sickly person and then harvest them for the needed organs.

Two things:

1) By justifying the cloning of slowed copies for organs, you could also say the same for people with mental disabilitites so I agree with you there.

2) Mucking around with DNA and ending up giving a clone X-men powers like laser eyes would be pretty fething cool.

DiscoVader wrote:The problem is that when you mess with DNA, you're not making a straight clone anymore, and you're bringing up the very real possibility of creating something that's incompatible with the very person you're cloning it from. DNA isn't cut and paste like you see in Jurassic Park and X-Men - the moment you change one single gene around, there's a huge chain reaction in the rest of the DNA. Sometimes it's barely noticeable and has little to no adverse reactions, but the chances that you're going to majorly feth something up with the thing you're creating is very, very high.

Even if you were able to pinpoint the exact genetic sequence to remove the higher functions of a person's brain, you're still creating a living human being to be harvested. Worse, what you're essentially suggesting is that you create a mentally slowed version of the sickly person and then harvest them for the needed organs.

Yes I'am quite aware that it would be impossible(were not bacteria after all) it was posed more as a hypothetical question, also organ don't need to be exact dna matches with the body to work right. Theres also the whole problem with one gene coding for multiple proteins. And we aren't really sure what causes consciousness

But then we enter the realm of 'what is human' is it being a member of the species Homo sapiens Or is it something deeper are you only truly human if you can conceptualize your own humanity. Is a human human because hes human or is he human because he thinks hes human. Descartes 'i think therefore i am'

I think that simply being a member of the species Homo Sapiens should guarantee you the rights that the rest of us receive. Does this mean that I value human life enough to say that a brain-dead person should be kept alive at all costs? No, of course not. But I think that a person should have a say in what happens to their body after they are no longer capable of making decisions, and that creating people that will never be able to say "Yes, you are allowed to use my body to help others" is ethically reprehensible.

Only in extreme situations would I say that "maximizing resources," so to speak, is acceptable - such as a heavy war, where the organs or medical care that a brain-dead person is using would be more applicable towards those with combat injuries/the like. And by the time that a society reaches that point, survival of the fittest kicks back into gear anyways. But doing so because it's easier doesn't make it right. That is, again, like taking anybody who is brain-dead/in a coma/suffering from extreme dementia and saying "Good news, folks, we've found a way to make you useful members of society again! Bill, start up the bone saw."

DiscoVader wrote:I think that simply being a member of the species Homo Sapiens should guarantee you the rights that the rest of us receive. Does this mean that I value human life enough to say that a brain-dead person should be kept alive at all costs? No, of course not. But I think that a person should have a say in what happens to their body after they are no longer capable of making decisions, and that creating people that will never be able to say "Yes, you are allowed to use my body to help others" is ethically reprehensible.

Only in extreme situations would I say that "maximizing resources," so to speak, is acceptable - such as a heavy war, where the organs or medical care that a brain-dead person is using would be more applicable towards those with combat injuries/the like. And by the time that a society reaches that point, survival of the fittest kicks back into gear anyways. But doing so because it's easier doesn't make it right. That is, again, like taking anybody who is brain-dead/in a coma/suffering from extreme dementia and saying "Good news, folks, we've found a way to make you useful members of society again! Bill, start up the bone saw."

BUt your not creating a person that not able to say it, your creating a collection of organs that doesn't have the capability to even conceptualize it. that why I said that you could only do it if it had absolutely no consciousness. As soon as it is able to comprehend suffering then it doesn't deserve to suffer. keep in mind that im not saying that the mentally challenged to should be harvested for organs because they can understand pain and suffering.

I suspect the technology will become available to create cloned organs without the bother of creating an entire person to harvest them from.

Already the technology exists to clone muscle tissue from cows and pigs and grow it on electrical grids that promote muscle development (by using cycling electrical current to "flex" the muscle tissues and "work them out"). While this technology is still in its infancy, theoretically there's no reason to suspect that they won't eventually be able to create very specific tissue masses (i.e. organs) from cloned human cells.

Does anyone find the prospect unethical? I can't imagine how anyone could stand in the way of such technology -- it would make the need for organ donors a thing of the past. Liver went bad? Grow a new liver. Yay!

A memory clone is just that; a clone. It is not the original person any more than a photocopy is the same as the original. Having said that, it is still a person and should enjoy the same rights as any naturally born being.

I would have no objection to a clone of myself (or parts of myself) being created in order to provide medical aid to me. I would also have no problem with allowing genetic experimentation on DNA which would then go on to form a person or animal. Gene alteration represents a huge potential for creating healthier and (hopefully) happier people. It may also allow us to create people and animals which can exist in extreme conditions - outer space, sea beds, volcanoes, etc. Though I am not sure if such constructs should be capable of independent reproduction or what kind of sentience should be given to them (or if they should be entirely stocked with "cloned" memories and personalities.

I would love to live in a time where genetic alteration and cloning meant that I could dial up what I wanted, enter some kind of medical pod and have my body altered and changed there and then (perhaps having to wait there for a period of days, weeks or months depending on the alterations ).

It would be interesting to see what affect this would have on your mind and personality.

Gailbraithe wrote:I suspect the technology will become available to create cloned organs without the bother of creating an entire person to harvest them from.

Already the technology exists to clone muscle tissue from cows and pigs and grow it on electrical grids that promote muscle development (by using cycling electrical current to "flex" the muscle tissues and "work them out"). While this technology is still in its infancy, theoretically there's no reason to suspect that they won't eventually be able to create very specific tissue masses (i.e. organs) from cloned human cells.

Does anyone find the prospect unethical? I can't imagine how anyone could stand in the way of such technology -- it would make the need for organ donors a thing of the past. Liver went bad? Grow a new liver. Yay!

Yes that would obviously be cheaper and more efficient, i was merely providing a theoretical thought experiment to test the limits of what we actually consider human

I'm surprised this is even bouncing around ethics/philosophy classes any more.

The ethical dilemmas with cloning really only exist around the realm of "Created for what purpose". Otherwise, they're really not different from a test-tube baby. You aren't creating an exact copy of yourself. You're creating a DNA copy of yourself. Everything I've read indicates that genes vs environment have roughly a 50/50 impact on how an individual develops (Regarding personality - obviously physical development will be more slanted towards genes).

Now the purpose of making the clones in the first place, that's more questionable. Is it morally acceptable to allow a family who lost a child to replace it with a clone? Questionable, although I think one could argue that kids already are brought up with pre-conceived notions of who they will be and how they will grow up.

Is it morally acceptable to grow brain-dead clones for the purpose of organ harvest? Again, questionable, but no more-so than pulling plugs or harvesting organs based on the permission of family members (Wouldn't the scientists growing the harvest clone be a family in a manner of speaking?)

Is it morally acceptable to create copies of our greatest artists/athletes in an effort to create a superior group of humans? Not only questionable regarding ethics, but in feasibility (Nature vs Nurture again...)

Cloning is just a tool, like a gun. What matters is what you're choosing to do with it.

I think cloning is only ethical if you're using the clones to make super soldiers.

Clone organs not people. Though I'd rather see cyborgs than clones walking around. Cyborgs are cooler, yo.

Flaming_Spider wrote:1.) Security. It is difficult to assassinate someone if there is eight of him. The problem here is that is lowers the value of human life.

2.) Sexual Purposes. Everyone can have their own copy of their dream girl / guy! This would also raise the issue of copyrighting human beings.

Are you talking about actual cloning or science fiction TV show cloning? Actual cloning just makes a new baby with the same genetics as the other person, like an identical twin. It doesn't make an exact copy of all of their memories and personality, and doesn't spring forth from the lab full-grown. If we clone Fearless Leader, it's like he had a kid or a brother - if he's killed, he's dead, a family member can take over (whether it's his clone, kid, twin brother, regular brother, or whatever), but it won't be him, won't have his memories, and might make different decisions. Making TV-style clones of a leader could be really dangerous to him, because the clones will be as ambitious as he is, so one of the clones may get sick of being the spare and try to take over as the real guy.

For the second one, there isn't any cloning ethics issue brought up other than the copyright issue. If you allow people to own people sex slaves, that's it's own ethical problem, it's unrelated to cloning, and banned by the 14th amendment in the US. If you allow someone to adopt or conceive a kid to grow them into a sex slave, that's unrelated to cloning, it's illegal under child abuse, incest, and a host of other laws. There's nothing intrinsic to 'cloning is OK' that says 'you also have to allow owning of and raising kids as sex slaves', and the ethical issues you're hitting come from the 'owning of and raising kids as sex slaves' part, not the 'cloning is OK' part.

Generally, almost all of the ethical issues that people have with 'cloning' has nothing to do with allowing human cloning, but with some other thing that they want to do along with cloning. If the US reversed the law forbidding human cloning today (if we haven't already), it wouldn't magically repeal the 14th amendment, child abuse laws, or murder laws. The issue of clone identity has been long settled in law, identical twins are handled without issue under every system of law I've ever seen even though they are clones of each other, and no legal system says that if you murder one of a pair of twins that it's OK because there's a spare.

I am talking about TV show style cloning. The clone will have the exact memories and personality of the original. Genetic engineering (it is the future after all) could be used to make the clones more submissive, remove personality, etc. I'm not talking about legal issues here, if the United States gets its way there will never be human cloning, but rather the moral implications of creating a person that will do whatever you tell them to. We take a look at a cyberpunk-esq world where clones are not considered human beings, but property, and this issue takes on a whole new outlook.

It's like an android. One that looks human, feels human, and for all intents and purposes, is human. The only difference is the lack of organic parts, but it is still sentient. Does it have rights? No. It is a machine. Always will be a machine. Nothing more. An AI would be in the same situation.