Thursday, February 21, 2002

Reynolds steers clear of the argument that theraputic cloning entails the creation of an embryo that will be destroyed, but he's taken that on before. To employ his techniques, his answer is, "I don't see it that way."

Why is this an acceptable answer, but "moral revulsion" is not an acceptable reason to oppose human cloning?

I challenge Reynolds and the other anti-cloning strawman bashers to make a case against anything -- racism, murder, the Holocaust, police brutality, stealing, etc. that doesn't utimately boil down to moral revulsion, or "I don't like it" if an interrogator asks "Why?" long enough.

Why is it so good that cloning should extend people's lives? Well, because I love my wife, and I'd like to keep her around. That's great, but at the end of the day, it's "I like it."

We're guided by our consciences. Like it or not, most of our laws and policies were arrived at by our internal sense of what's right and what's wrong. Reynolds say that our consciences shouldn't be trusted, because following them led to segregation. That may be true, but we know that that's because those consciences were formed poorly becuase of the environment of racism. Is the moral revulsion to cloning based on a poorly informed conscience? If so, how? Why are our consiences wrong in this case, and why shouldn't we trust them?

Our consciences are correct most of the time. It seems to me that before one discounts the conscience's input into ethical deicisons like this, one should demonstate why the conscience is incorrect in that case. It is not sufficient to merely say that people's consciences have been wrong before.
Post a Comment