Order now

Sample Essay : Human Cloning

The possibility to clone living organisms is known to raise serious debates in the modern world. Meanwhile, it is a relevant scientific approach to eliminate and/or reduce serious genetic and social problems; it possesses considerable ethical issues that may beget highly undesirable global changes of today’s society. Specifically, the strongest pro argument is that by means of human cloning it is possible to accomplish great moral and political goods. Meanwhile, the main argument against the artificial creation of living beings is the attribution of responsibility and its negative impact on the society.


The moral and political goods can be logically divided into three components: “human freedom, existence and well-being” (Scarlet &Arthur, 2014). These benefits are expected to be achieved as the positive consequences of human cloning. The moral and political goods contain unlimited possibilities to create biologically related offspring; eliminate the danger of genetic diseases and/or replicate the deceased loved ones. Moreover, the humanity would be capable to produce biologically identical and, thus, rejection-free transplants. In addition, the moral and political goods obtained as the result of human cloning would include the reproduction of individuals who are/were known in history. To such persons can be attributed those known for their exclusive talent, genius ability and significant achievements in different life spheres, as well as those who possess valuable physical qualities such as extreme beauty.

Given the above-stated advantages of human cloning, human rights activists emphasize that the individuals have the right to chose whether or not it is appropriate to enjoy the benefits proposed by cloning. In particular, those advocating this freedom of choice equate the right for cloning with other basic human freedoms. Their rationale is the following: the rights and freedoms of one individual end where the rights and freedoms of another person begin. Therefore, as long as cloning does not violate any vital rights of its opponents, this approach must be considered as the legal and moral right of its adherents.


Furthermore, in these terms, the proponents of the goodness of existence presume that the emergence of a human being is valuable enough to justify cloning as the alternative means of giving life to a new person. Finally, the good of well-being is often used as a pro argument to emphasize that cloning is a relevant measure to improve the life-quality of numerous humans. In particular, cloning-to-produce-children approach can be used to provide better health conditions to both newborns and already existing children. Moreover, it would create opportunities of becoming the biological parents for infertile couples.

Stuck with your essay or term paper?

Order top-quality essays and research papers now

In contrast to the pro arguments, the opponents of cloning refer to the attribution of responsibility as the main argument against human cloning. Considering the case, those raising the question of attribution of responsibility assume that certain individuals, by adhering to the idea of human cloning, divide the responsibilities dictated by their social statuses. In other words, living in the society presumes the need to endure the burdens of social statuses, such as a citizen, a spouse, a parent, and a worker. The opponents of cloning believe that this approach would decrease the sense of responsibility, which unites particular individuals into society with a clearly distinguishable structure. For instance, those opposing cloning scrutinize “parents seek to overcome obstacles of reproduction, to keep their children free of genetic disease or disorder, and to provide them with the best possible genetic endowment” (Scarlet &Arthur, 2014). Further, they deduce that such approach may provide own freedom and/or control over the other living beings and their well-being. Nevertheless, all these intentions are selfish and can be considered as those that violate the rights of other humans. Therefore, in the contemporary world this approach is inappropriate.


Summarizing, one should emphasize that human cloning is a greatly debatable idea that, nowadays, arouses many disputes. The adherents of cloning depict the advancement of moral and political goods as the main argument in favor of the artificially created organisms. Meanwhile, the opponents of cloning emphasize the highly plausible negative consequences of the attribution of responsibility, which they consider to be the main reason of people’s desire to clone their own kind.


What our client say