The moral status
The moral status of animals is at the centre of ethical debate about whether we have the right to use them in research and testing. Few people disagree that animals count in our moral framework. The more difficult question, especially in the case of animal research, is how much do they count? Should the needs and interest of other animals weigh as heavily in the balance as those of humans? Morality or ethics at a personal level takes the form of an ability to discern right and wrong, good and bad or evil, and to choose in an informed way to live by what is judged right and good.
At the level of society, morality is the whole phenomenon of directing behavior by means by means of the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad or evil. Animal experimentation as a scientific method began to gain currency in Britain in the nineteenth century, with the spread of the new disciplines of experimental physiology and medicine. There was adverse public reaction to the suffering endured by animals, as well as the conditions in which they are kept, because animal research has been a major strand of scientific endeavor for so long . Many medical advances have involved experiments on animals.
However, simply because animal experiments have figured in many medical developments does not necessary mean that every advance has benefited from animal experiments or crucially depended on them. It would also be incorrect simply to assume that, because animal experiments were so widely used in the last two centuries, they must remain a dominant methodology in the twenty-first century. Cloning sometimes called nuclear transfers, sometimes nuclear replacement this involves the transfer of the DNA nucleus from a cell to an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.
The research made by Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell as made history when they did this in a sheep, starting with a cell from an adult ewe, transferring its nucleus to an egg from another ewe, who gave birth to Dolly. From this point of view, many people have believed that cloning can be defined as creating a new sheep, maybe a new human being. The definition is too narrow for geneticist who uses the word cloning to mean copying or replicating any DNA, from short stretches to the entire nucleus or genome.
What cloning offers is the power to reverse cell differentiation, a natural process whereby the cells of the developing body become different from each other, even though they share the same genes, so that one is a brain cell whereas another is a muscle cell or a blood cell. One way to understand the power of cloning is to think about its potential important relationship to human germ line modification is far from impudent than cloning, for whereas cloning might create a new individual with nuclear DNA taken from another, germ line modification intentionally alters the DNA that an individual inherits and transmits to future generations.
Cloning replicates genes that have existed and transmits to future generations. Cloning replicates genes that have existed, but germ line modification has been achieved in animals, but with low efficiency and safety. This work is done in farm animals, for instance in order to introduce human genes into sheep so tat the sheep will produce valuable human proteins for therapies. From all discussions about cloning that ignore human germ line modification suffer from a kind of moral tunnel vision grounded in a misunderstanding of biotechnology.
And yet nearly all the ethics debates about cloning have overlooked this relationship, often ignoring the question of human germ line modification altogether. Opposing Cloning Some have opposed cloning by declaring that it is repugnant and that we should respond with revulsion. Cloning, according to Leon Kass (1998), it belongs in the same category as incest, sex with animals, mutilating a corpse, eating human flesh, rape and murder. For Christians this is all familiar ground, for there is nothing new about warned of the attractions of evil and the seductiveness of temptation.
Is cloning attractive for the wrong reasons? Is it pure evil masquerading as the “Killer App”, or is it a limited good that comes with a long list of possibly dangerous side effects, which we can avoid if we are careful? Perhaps the general public has understood something about cloning that the experts have ignored, that cloning appeals to us because we desire power over nature, over life, over our own bodies. We fear age, degeneration, and loss of mental powers more than death itself. Here is a technology that turns back biological time, that promises to rejuvenate cells and organs and, most of all, brains .
Is this evil masquerading as good? Is it access to the tree of life via the tree of knowledge, and we are too blind d to see the evil? Is cloning quite literally a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Theological Preamble on Cloning It is inherent in our nature to find ways to shape the created order around us. When we speak of creation, however, this should not be read as if it were a single event, but includes the continuous evolutionary unfolding of the natural order of which God is both an author and sustainer.
Indeed, when the ancient Genesis account describes human behavior the “image of God” and naming the animals, something creative is implied. As Christians we are conscious, however, not every development is necessary acceptable, and that we need to critique the impulses which drive biotechnology and which sets its priorities. Yet the more powerful the methods we use, the more we need to consider not only what is technically possible but what is happening to us people if we say “yes” to every possibility which science may enable.
The drive to “see if we can do it” which seems at time to be the primary propelling force needs better channeling. Molecular biology is in many ways an immature science. It has begun to realize its powers, but has not found out how to use that power in balance with wider aspects and with realistic understanding of human nature. Our Christian heritage teaches us to be skeptical of romantic notions of unrestrained human improvement and scientific progress that prevail in some parts of the scientific and political communities.
Our support for scientific research is moderated by our awareness of human finiteness and fallibility . We do not know as much about biology as we sometimes think, and human nature sadly inclines us to misuse our God-given talents as well as to use them well. The Bible teaches a holistic view of human life, fulfilled in relationship. Respects for the human person and for our relationship with each other and with the rest of God’s creation are therefore more important criteria than mere progress, economic well being, or medical advance in them. Good thought these things can be, they are not absolutes.
This leads us to the conclusion that not all technical progress in biotechnology is necessarily desirable. To become mature, we should learn when to say “no”, as well as “yes”. It is not surprising that animals was treated with oppression by human domination, slavery were used for inhumane treatment because it is when people are treated like animals but the slavery of animals was taken form granted and using them on scientific research like cloning is one. Animals are entitled to the concept of rights though they have undeveloped desires and interest but this interest makes them to have moral rights.
Animals are a subject of a life or intentional beings. They have desires, intentions, feelings, and a psychological identity over time-there is “someone home” in an animal. Animals should be included in our moral community as being with rights. There is a utilitarian principle that would argue on the equal consideration of interest on treating animals and making as a species to be used on proving the efficiency of cloning and after such experiments this will soon be applied on man since there are theories that define the fact that we came from animals.
When this practice will be accepted to be moral therefore we then accept that soon man will also be used as an experimental species. We have different obligations towards animals which are rational and self-conscious as contrasted with those which are not. It is also agreed that harm done in human is not comparable to harm on animals. Thus the case for animal rights been offered, if it is sound, then, like us, animals have certain basics moral rights, including in particular the fundamental rights to be treated with the respect that, as possessors of inherent value, they are due as a matter of strict justice.
In such conditions on subject to life for animals, it is assumed that moral rights, possessed by humans, arise from just those interest such as food and sex, then there are no difference in essence from those of animals, and since that any one who agrees that human have rights, we could conclude that animals should have them too. By the sense that an animal avoids pain and some of them as quick instinct to avoid it, it does indeed have interest, many animals obviously have interest in that sense.
Since we are convinced that rights are the product of animal interests that a being has rights because it has interests-and we cannot comprehend and could assert humans, who surely do have interest, that their rights could flow from anything else. But the conviction that human rights flow from human interests (a conviction shared expressly or tacitly by virtually all animal rights advocates) is one for which there is simply no foundation. The lives we human leads are indeed moral lives, pervaded by duties and rights.
But this moral character of our lives is not a by product of our subjective awareness. Our rights are not ours because we experience our lives as our own. Nonhuman creatures may have subjective interests like ours in survival and reproduction, and they may be supposed to have subjective experience of some sort. But from those interests moral rights cannot be inferred. There is no moral justification for refusing to take animal suffering seriously.
Experiments on animals should only be carried out if experimenters be willing to also use human beings at an equal or lower level consciousness. The argument for extending principle of equality beyond our own animals is simple, so simple that I amounts o no more than a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interest. We have to place our concerns on basic principles that imply our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess.
In this basis that since animals has less intelligence than humans it does not entitles man to exploit them in some experiments that man choose to do for animals. There are other differences between humans and animals that cause other complications. Normal adult human beings have mental capacities that will, in certain circumstances lead then to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. If, for instance, we decided to perform cloning on normal adult without their consent, adults who entered parks would become fearful that they would be kidnapped.
The resultant terror would be a form of suffering additional to the pain of the experiment. The same experiments performed on nonhuman animals would cause less suffering since the animals would not have the anticipatory dread of being kidnapped and experimented upon. This does not mean that it would be right to perform experiments such as cloning on animals, but only that there is a reason that it is usual to prefer using animals rather than normal adult human being if there is an experiment to be done at all.
However, that this same argument gives us reason for preferring to use human infants – orphans perhaps – or severely intellectually disabled humans would also have no idea of what was going to happen. As far as this argument is concerned, nonhuman animals and infants and severely intellectually disabled humans are in the same category; and if we use this argument to justify experiments on nonhuman animals we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and severely intellectually disabled adults.
If we make a distinction between animals and these humans, how can we do it, other than on the basis of a morally indefensible preference for members of our own species? There are many areas in which the superior mental powers of normal adult humans make a difference; anticipation, more detailed memory, greater knowledge of what is happening, and so on. These differences explain why a human dying from a cancer is likely to suffer more than a mouse. It is the mental anguish tat makes the human’s position so much harder to bear.
These differences do not all point to a greater suffering on the part of the normal human being because sometimes animals may suffer more because of their more limited understanding. If, for instance, we are taking prisoners in wartime we can explain to them that wile they must submit to capture, search, and confinement they will not otherwise be harmed and will be set free at the conclusion of hostilities. If we capture wild animals, however, we cannot explain that we are threatening their lives.
A wild animal cannot distinguish an attempt to overpower and confine from an attempt to kill; the one causes as much terror as the other. It may be objected that comparisons of the sufferings of different species are impossible to make, and tat for this reason when the interests of animals and human clash, the principle of equality gives no guidance. It is true that comparisons of suffering between members of different species cannot be made precisely. Nor, for that matter, can comparisons of suffering between members of different human beings be made precisely.
Precision is not essential, even if we are to prevent the infliction of suffering of an animal only when the interest of human will not be affected to anything like the extent that animals are affected. Conclusion The darker side of cloning animals is that it could be a source for exceptional animal which has been cloned to be killed by the same disease that originated from the original animal. They will all be susceptible to the same disease since they have shared the same genetic structures.
In the basis of religious organizations there is place for too much power in the hands of scientist that would perform cloning and this process already ignore the truth that each human has a distinctive soul. In cloning, we need to draw the line between right and wrong. We are aware that animal cloning could give as some advantages especially on the advances of medicine technology and several researches are done to improve or prolonged human life and for such reasons that we sacrifice the life of animals for the benefits of man.
It is also acceptable that such results from scientific methods done on animal cloning becomes the basis of the knowledge from which can be used in perfection for human cloning. The moral issues on the rights of animals as one of the creation of God are also entitled to claim their rights despite the fact that they cannot express themselves. Cloning does violate such rights and equality for animals since they are the more recessive living organisms than man.
Researches done on animal cloning should not be used as precursors for human cloning, because it involves an insidious action that depletes morality. Therefore, action should be made by the concerned organization to stop such acts on animals; we have to consider that due to the demand for experimentation on scientific research the right of animals was ignored but if we don’t ban such actions, we can assume that time will come that even human rights will no longer be considered if the priority of research is done for the benefits of it.
Drummond, C. D. (2004). The Ethics of Nature. Blackwell Publishing. Levinson, R. , M. J. Reiss (2003). Key Issues on Bioethics. RoutledgeFalmer, New York. Turner, R. C. (2001). Beyond Cloning: religion and the remaking of humanity. Continuum International Publishing Group.Sample Essay of StudyFaq.com