Introduction
Cloning is a controversial topic not only in the realm of ethics, but also in the medical field. There are several reasons why certain people believe that cloning is unethical. They believe that it is unethical due to medical concerns since cloning is a relatively unexplored field of science. In addition, the clones’ self-perception in the society is a point of ethical controversy, given that the clones might have trouble seeing themselves as separate entities (Häyry, 2018). On the other hand, there are individuals who believe that cloning is at the center of the future development of the human race and to stymie it is an unethical decision. Furthermore, human cloning would allow families that cannot have children to reproduce, elevating the mental burden that they experience. Depending on the person’s set of ethics, one can take the stance either pro or against cloning.
The Ethical Egoism Position
As the point of ethical egoism is to support oneself before others, the question of whether an ethical egoist would support cloning is the question of cloning’s potential benefit. If the goals of an ethical egoist align with the possibilities that cloning might open, then they would take its side. However, for an ethical egoist, it is vital to consider their future rather than focus on the satisfaction of the present needs (Rachels, 2003). Therefore, unless they have an external motivation, an ethical egoist would be wary of the concept of cloning. They would regard this phenomenon as an agent of unpredictability that has the potential to irreversibly change society. In addition, their social position would have a significant influence. Cloning is not an inexpensive process, and wealthy people would be the ones most likely to afford it. These circumstances would essentially create a separate class of people consisting of the wealthy and their clones. Ethical egoists belonging to the middle or lower class would not see the created divide as beneficial to themselves.
The moral position of an ethical egoist, in this case, would be justified by the fact that a person has only one life. The great value that human life has justifies them making decisions based on the merit of their own benefit rather than the benefit of society. The second moral justification is that restricting a person’s ability to pursue their benefit without a concrete reason is immoral and devalues their status as human beings. Depending on an ethical egoist’s pursuits, the conflict between self and loyalty to the community here comes through the possible implications of cloning for society as a whole. It is a person’s responsibility to ensure the stability of the society around them; however, if the egoist decided to site with cloning, they would easily disregard the troublesome notions. The best course of action here is to make a convincing argument in favor of the long-term detrimental outcomes of cloning.
The Social Contract Ethics Position
The ethics of social contract theory rely on the notion that people agree to adhere to a set of morals for the communal good of society. A social contract follower would evaluate the matter of human cloning, consider the potentially detrimental outcomes, and take a side against it regardless of their personal agenda. The idea behind social contract ethics is that through the pursuit of their own good, people end up in an ultimately worse situation (Rachels, 2003). The first moral justification that these individuals would provide is that trying to give childless people the ability to have children would devalue the notion of childbirth. A world consisting entirely or almost entirely of clones would suffer from significant biological and genetic consequences. The second moral justification would be that, although the purpose of cloning is to solve the childless persons’ grief and anguish, it would create a moral struggle for the clones themselves. Thus, while trying to manage mental health disparities, cloning could become a source of new issues in the sphere instead. The topic does not involve a collision between national and personal obligations.
The Medical Ethics Code and Cloning
AMA code for doctors provides guidelines for ethical decisions made by doctors regarding their patients. The AMA code states that doctors have an obligation towards society (Rakatansky, 2018). Therefore, the doctors that are presented with the opportunity to introduce cloning as a widespread medical procedure should consider the societal implications of this phenomenon. The chosen topic involves the conflict between professional and familial duties if the professional in question has a family member that suffers severely from their inability to bear children. This conflict is intensified if the person is considering self-cloning as an option.
Conclusion
In conclusion, cloning can be a subject of extensive debate with various arguments, depending on which school of thought is employed. Individuals adhering to ethical egoism and social contract theory would not support the idea of cloning; however, their reasoning would be different. A doctor’s position towards cloning would be dictated by the AMA code that dictates them to consider the good of society, and they would take a stance against it as well.
References
Häyry, M. (2018). Ethics and cloning. British Medical Bulletin, 128(1), 15–21.
Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. 4th ed. McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Rakatansky, H. (2018). AMA code of ethics: Roots, revisions and relevance today. Rhode Island Medical Journal, 101(3), 12–14.