Utilitarian consequentialist viewpoint in human cloning

This paper is an evaluation of the utilitarian consequentialist viewpoint concerning the issue of human cloning.

Consequentialism

However, most people seem to incline to the position that human cloning at the present time is unethical for a number of reasons including the likelihood of harm to participants and the safety of techniques used.

Humanistic Psychology is a branch of psychology with focus on human behavior. Whereas consequentialist theories posit that consequences of action should be the primary focus of our thinking about ethics, virtue ethics insists that it is the character rather than the consequences of actions that should be the focal point.

I then describe the different meanings that cloning can have in the biological sense. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. In this dissertation I take on the task of reconstructing and evaluating the arguments for and against human cloning, and finally argue that the disagreement is really about how to define "moral status.

That is, one might ask "Consequences for whom? Acting in a situation without first informing oneself of the circumstances of the situation can lead to even the most well-intended actions yielding miserable consequences.

Utilitarian Consequentialist Viewpoint in Human Cloning Introduction Human cloning has been a contentious subject marked with heated debate. For example, Philippa Foot argues that consequences in themselves have no ethical content, unless it has been provided by a virtue such as benevolence.

Jeremy Benthambest known for his advocacy of utilitarianism Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. Chapter V attempts to answer the question: They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think If we accept these conditions in a manner that is topic neutral with respect to the moral theories, then I argue that human cloning is permissible in some cases.

It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. That Job should suffer and Socrates and Jesus die while the wicked prosper, then seems unjust. From a utilitarian consequentialist viewpoint, after weighing the perceived pleasure and potential pains, human cloning should not be permitted as it would result in more pain to the cloned individuals and the society since the clones will exist as copies or spare part of the existing humans.

Thus, in an agent-focused account, such as one that Peter Railton outlines, the agent might be concerned with the general welfare, but the agent is more concerned with the immediate welfare of herself and her friends and family.

However, both sides concur on the need to reflection on the social and ethical implication of human cloning. At the very least, any moral theory needs to define the standpoint from which the goodness of the consequences are to be determined.

Human Cloning To those in favor of human cloning, their arguments often revolve around the idea of addressing reproduction; however, such arguments tend to focus on the narrow benefits involved Caplan, Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally.

John Stuart Millin his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.

In this chapter, I argue that one of the best defenses of human cloning is when human cloning is understood as a reproductive rights issue, but explaining and defending this right is problematic.

Some, like Henry Sidgwickargue that a certain degree of egoism promotes the general welfare of society for two reasons: Anscombe objects to consequentialism on the grounds that it does not provide ethical guidance in what one ought to do because there is no distinction between consequences that are foreseen and those that are intended.

From a utilitarian consequentialist viewpoint, after weighing the perceived pleasure and potential pains, human cloning should not be permitted as it would result in more pain to the cloned individuals and the society since the clones will exist as copies or spare part of the existing humans.

For example, how does the opponent of human cloning who is concerned with issues like "playing God," human dignity, or moral repugnance converse with a proponent who believes cloning is really about the reproductive rights of individuals?

Connecticut to Roe v. This article considers some of the central issues related to utilitarianism and these bioethical questions. Rule consequentialism is a theory that is sometimes seen as an attempt to reconcile deontology and consequentialism—and in some cases, this is stated as a criticism of rule consequentialism.

In due to the influence that his work on "theory of human motivation" had in the field of… Democracy and human rights This essay is going to be about some of the philosophers whose thoughts about democracy and human rights affected the declaration of human rights, and also about the deceleration itself.

Chapter III concerns itself with a set of objections to human cloning that comes from the religious ethicists. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty.

What I show is that contrary to the popular opinion there are opponents and proponents in each of these moral camps, presenting arguments for and against human cloning. Eudaemonist theories Greek eudaimonia, "happiness" hold that the goal of ethics consists in some function or activity appropriate to man as a human being, and thus tend to emphasize the cultivation of virtue or excellence in the agent as the end of all action.

Ethical egoism Ethical egoism can be understood as a consequentialist theory according to which the consequences for the individual agent are taken to matter more than any other result.In many cases, utilitarianism departs from traditional moral views on bioethical problems.

Applied to genetics, utilitarianism broadly supports genetic testing, genetic selection of offspring with the opportunity to enjoy.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BCE, is the "world's earliest form of consequentialism, a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare".

Unlike utilitarianism, which views utility as the sole.

Immanuel Kant & Human Cloning By: Rachel Weinstein Philosophical Theories (Rule Nonconsequentialist) Kant's ideas were influenced by David Hume's ethical theories. Real-Life Application of Kantian Ethics Most of the pros and cons of human cloning are based on a consequentialist approach.

However, human cloning from a utilitarian consequentialist perspective is set to benefit many people on earth. From the standpoint, it is viewed as morally justified. Genetically altering the chromosomal composition of a person so that he or she can be free from defects would be ethically right.

According to Thomson and her violinist analogy based argument, if the fetus is thought to be a human being then abortion is not morally permissible.

False All arguments regarding abortion depend on decisions regarding the moral status of the fetus. In matters of human cloning, a utilitarian would argue it is essential to weigh up the pain and pleasure that the action would produce. However, just because cloning may cause overall happiness for the greatest number, doesn’t necessarily mean it is .

Download
Utilitarian consequentialist viewpoint in human cloning
Rated 5/5 based on 43 review