Ethicist: Some would ban cloning on the grounds that clones would be sub-people, existing to indulge the vanity of t...
SchuylerAugust 14, 2019
Confusion about this question
I understand that the conclusion of this passage is "You do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else's ego." However, I'm a little confused about how one can determine that the ethicist's view is that vanity isn't enough of a reason to ban cloning. He's arguing that people (even those not born in a test tube) can be an extension of someone else's ego. He mentions what some people believe (clones would be sub-people, therefore we should ban cloning), mentions an example of when people are used for another's ego (children being pushed to achieve in sports, etc), and then states his conclusion utilizing that evidence ("You do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else's ego.") I just don't completetly understand how one can deduce that his view is that vanity isn't enough of a reason to ban clothing as he more argues that there are other ways people can be an extension of someone's ego. I just find that there's a bit of a disconnect between his conclusion and the correct answer. Hope that makes sense; maybe I'm just over-complicating it?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! Let me walk through the ethicist's argument first. The ethicist opens up with presenting the arguments of "some," which is that they would ban cloning because clones exist to indulge the vanity of originals. The ethicist then points out that using one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another isn't illegal, and gives examples. The conclusion here is not that "you do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else's ego," even though it's the last sentence. The ethicist is giving examples of other things that seem similar to cloning with respect to indulging people's vanities, but aren't banned, which implies that cloning shouldn't be banned for that reason either. Thus, we can suggest that the ethicist holds this view. Does this make sense? Hope it helps.
nicolebetFebruary 20, 2020
Hi,
I would like a further explanation of this. I agree with the first comment, to me vanity was not the assumption, it was individuality and that why I picked answer D.
