Charlene asked:

I am a Maltese student, and at the College I attend, me and my friends are doing a magazine on
cloning. Obviously, one cannot talk about cloning without looking at the ethical point of view of the
subject. So, I decided to ask you, dear sir/ madam, about the ethical point of view on cloning. I thank
you in anticipation for your information.

============

Remember Socrates: "know thyself"? And many others, who said the same? Let us say, then, that
knowinghow to clone is good, if self-knowledge is good. Then we ask, is actingon this knowledge
good? But how is that question answered? One cannotanswer, generally, the question of when
knowledge should be applied.

Is any self-knowledge intrinsically bad or evil? I suppose that if one knew nothing except how to kill,
and that particular knowledge could only be applied to that end (and I actually do not know any such
— even weapons programs have implications in other realms), then that knowledge would be
intrinsically evil. But cloning is not in this category (look at animal husbandry, below).

Well, then, we're left with the typical dilemma of any knowledge that could be applied for good or for
evil, aren't we. We then ask how cloning shouldbe applied. Can it be applied for good? It would seem
reasonable that as far as animal husbandry goes, for example, cloning the most successful animal of
a given type would eliminate much of the genetic roulette of breeding programs. So cloning of
animals could have great beneficial effects, and probably not too many deleterious effects (and I'm
assuming that we've got the technology down, so that the animals don't start dropping dead, breeding
monsters, etc.... those are clearly not necessary implications of cloning). So cloning could be applied
for good.

What about cloning of humans? First, is it intrinsically bad? Well, we now have artificial insemination
for a variety of reasons, and that is not regarded as bad, so if we take that attitude to be a correct
judgment, the "artificial" aspect is not intrinsically bad. Is a clone the "same" person as the original?
Obviously not, no more than an identical twin is. To object that the rich could clone themselves is to
neglect the fact that the rich can also have multitudes of children (and do) if they wish. Could cloning
be used to generate thousands of identical soldiers? Yes, perhaps. Would that be bad? If soldiers are
necessary for a country, then it is good to have them. To raise someone, from birth, however, without
letting them choose, as anythingin particular is almost certainly bad, because of the lack of choice,
assuming that it is good to let someone choose their own life. Could cloning be used to generate the
twin of a great scientist or artist (philosopher, even) who died too soon? Yes, and that might be good;
at least, the world would have another with the same potential.

The emotional issue seems to be that "test tube production" of people is bad. But if we look at that,
we find that it is not actually the "test tube" aspect, as we have seen above, but the "production"
aspect that is abhorrent. But what's the difference between that and having thousands of women,
even as volunteers, producing babies for anyset purpose? The problem is the lack of choice and
dignity, which could result from anytype of human breeding program.

Steven Ravett Brown