The "Wisdom" of Repugnance

From guest blogger, Michael.

Though it was only briefly mentioned in class, I'm interested in the 'Wisdom of Repugnance', less so for its moral validity, more so for its implications.

The idea is criticized for being an appeal to emotion, and thus intrinsically fallacious, which is undeniably true.  Disgust is not a good barometer for morality as shown by movements such as slavery, anti-semitism, prohibition, etc..

Yet somewhat contrarily, one has to concede that disgust is relevant not only as an evolutionary mechanic to avoid disease (fear of bugs, sores, rotting food, etc.) but also in some social norms (incest, murder... table etiquette?). These fears or anxieties usually don't merit a logical explanation because they are generally accepted as valid. 

It is when the emotion is "co-opted" morally into non-relevant phenomena such as xenophobia that it loses its validity. Consider the cavemen days where xenophobia would be contributory to survival (other tribes were generally hostile), however, and disgust suddenly seems normative, or at the very least justifiable in a primitive context.

Perhaps we simply live in a time where social change occurs faster than we can adapt our evolutionary intuitions.  But then can any deep-seated intuition really be considered normative? We operate plenty on the "pleasure over pain" idea, as well as the assumption that that warm, tingly feeling indicates moral behavior. What do you guys think?

The Ethics of Cloning

From guest blogger, Leona.

Two days ago, I came across this article on reddit saying that clones of Dolly the sheep aged healthily. They did not show premature age-related problems. The researchers still need to look into the telomere aspects of those clones of a clone, but this at least demonstrated that cloning will not necessarily led to shortened lifespan. Even though these clones might still be prone to having genetic defects and detrimental mutations due to shortened telomere, the fact that their lifespan is largely unaffected can undermine arguments that are similar to Allhoff’s (i.e. cloning is not morally permissible because the clones are expected to have a life that is shorter than the general population and are more likely to have genetic defects).

However, considering the high level of stigma against cloning, I doubt if this recent finding would make cloning more acceptable to many. Besides the Principle Q argument, the slippery slope argument, and the family ethics argument we discussed in class, there are some other interesting arguments against cloning. Two of them are very similar: one argued that cloning is immoral because the clone’s identity is compromised due to having the same genotype as someone who have already lived, thus denied his or her chance to have an open future; the other argued that by having the same genotype as someone else, the clone’s dignity is violated because he or she cannot have a unique genetic identity. One major problem with these two arguments is that they both neglect the roles of nurture, environment, and epigenetic factors. They both made the mistake of genetic essentialism, which assumed genotype is the only determinant factor of one’s identity. In addition, in the case of the second argument we should kill one of the identical twins so the living one can have a unique genetic identity. 

link to the clones of Dolly the sheep: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/dolly-the-sheep-clones-age-healthily

* On another note, there's an article that is associated with last week's topic, marriage equality, that I found very interesting. Some queer activists are criticizing the marriage equality movement because marriage has a history of being used as a tool for government control of minorities, and the movement was largely planned out by the gay 1% and reinforced the normative view of relationships. In addition, marriage equality was presented as a way to solve healthcare and immigration status issues for minority groups. The authors argued that these issues should be addressed separately in queer activism. 

http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free

Why Cloning Is Immoral

From guest blogger, Ming,

In Allhoff’s article, he argues that it is morally wrong to clone because of some biological consequences that telomerase shortens from duplication. He also mentions cloning is wrong according to principle Q that the number of people survive is the same either decision you make, but it is morally wrong if you choose the worst one if one group of people would live shorter.

I agree that cloning is morally wrong, but not because of principle Q. First of all, I think that reproduction of human is different from reproduction of plants, because generally human reproduction requires combination of sperm and egg. However, cloning just requires DNA from a cell from scalp tissue of one person and I don’t think cloning follows natural law because it simply extract some DNA and produce a very similar “human-alike” product.

Also, I think cloning is different from having babies without genetic testing for diseases. Some people will have pre-marital medical exam before having babies, but it is not for sure that the genetic disorder will pass to next generation. Thus, it is hard for parents to abort babies or change other mates. However, we are hundred percent sure that cloning would shorten animals’ lifetime. It is immoral to make worst choice if you have other choice available.

Is Cloning Moral?

From guest blogger, Michael.

A case against the moral permissibility of cloning, when the clones face significantly reduced lifespans, can be made on the basis that procreation through natural means will create offspring with a longer lifespan, and thus a higher quality of life.  Both sides can agree that if cloning could be done in a way that did not significantly lower the lifespan of the clones, it would be morally permissible. 

Well, a study recently released recently shows that a new set of 13 sheep clones are doing just fine.  They have yet to show any signs of premature aging, and are all around in great physical health.  So, assuming that we can now expect to someday live in a world where we can create healthy clones of ourselves, is cloning morally permissible?

Personally, I think it is, but for the sake of this blog post I will provide an argument against it.  Humans have been brought into this world in the same fashion for countless generations.  A man and woman engaging in passionate intimacy to bring new life into the world has some kind of natural value to it.  Humans are the byproduct of love, and that is how it ought to be.  To change this would be to change too fundamental a part of humanity, and cloning does just that.  It takes the grace out of the conception and makes the creation of a person no more significant the manufacturing of material goods.

My opponent may bring up the point that test tube babies have been produced in a somewhat-similar fashion for many years now.  None of the people created through such means seem to live any less dignified kind of life. But the babies conceived in test tubes are still an intimate combination of two beings.  Being nothing more than an identical copy of your parent may make your life seem less significant in some way.  The clone does not have its own sense of self.  It just a second copy.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/27/12294614/dolly-the-sheep-clone-health-aging-study

Cloning's Implications for Genetics

From guest blogger, Hannah. 

I think it is interesting to look at the cloning case and examine its ethical implications regarding testing for genetic disorders. When discussing Allhoff's argument against current cloning cases he discovers that due to the shortening of telomerase from replications, creating a clone would be deliberately allowing that clone to live a shorter life and be subject to many of the degenerative diseases that come from old age such as various cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and others. In the case of Dolly the sheep clone, she lived for half the life of an average sheep because her cells were taken from a 7-year old sheep. Therefore, Allhoff believes that cloning is immoral and unjustified right now because of its effects on the clone.

I believe that according to these guidelines, it is immoral for parents to avoid genetic testing for diseases such as Huntington's disease, because if they abstain they did not take any preventative measures to keep that child from the pain that may come from a genetic disease. Although Allhoff disagrees with Principle Q, if you have the choice between having two children (at different times, with different people) you ought to choose the time or partner that will provide the child that is better off, he thinks that reproduction is not only aimed to maximize the child's welfare, but instead to create the best child they are able to. However, there are many tests now along with genetic engineering that would allow parents to craft the best child they are able to and therefore they may be morally required to take such genetic tests in order to create the best child that they can and ensure they will not face extreme hardships such as Huntington's disease. This may be difficult for some parents to face because it is not definite that a child will get these diseases, yet sometimes the chance is as high as 50%. If a couple discovered that their child was at higher risk for a genetic disease, the only moral choice would be to abstain from having a child. However, many parents do not want to make this discovery because they want to raise a child and many would take the risk.

Do you think it is moral for a parent to have a child when they have a risk of a genetic disease? Along those lines, do you think parents need to participate in genetic testing before they are allowed to have a child?