Section 1CTA: Ashton Sperry11/11/07

Humanity©

In “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” Kass argues that cloning will lead the human race

down a dangerous path. He disputes that cloning will be the ultimate end of human kind's

industrialization of procreation. He says that, with cloning, we take “a giant step toward turning

begetting into making, procreation into manufacture.”1 Kass contends that cloned human beings

would be stripped of their humanity. He claims that “the violation of human equality, freedom

and dignity are present even in a single planned clone.” Finally, he says that cloning would lead

towards the commercialization of procreation and “the commodification of nascent human life

will be unstoppable.”2 Kass believes that the only way to prevent this violation of human rights

and to protect from the commercialization of procreation is to not allow cloning and cloning

technology to develop. I will argue that Kass's objection to cloning human reproduction fails

because his claim of the loss of humanity in clones is based on an unsupportable premise

regarding the true nature of humanity, and that “the commodification of nascent human life” is

already a reality, with or without the introduction of cloning as a method of human reproduction.

Kass raises three distinct potential moral issues with cloning. First, he says that “Human

cloning would also represent a giant step toward turning begetting into making.”3 He believes

that cloning would represent the ultimate step towards making the wholesale industrialized

production of human beings a reality. He believes that this “would be taking a major step into

1 Kass says this on 612.2 in the opening paragraph of his “Production and Commodification Objection.”2 The first quote comes from 612.2 at the bottom of the page and the second is the last sentence of the objection on 613.1.3 This is the opening sentence to Kass’s objection on 612.2.

making man himself simply another one of the man-made things.” Kass argues that human

beings would be reduced to just another component in “the technological project.”4

The second moral issue that Kass elaborates upon is the shift in human reproductive

methods from “begetting” to “making.” He states, “in natural procreation, human beings come

together, complementarily male and female, to give existence to another being who is formed,

exactly as we were, by what we are.” Conversely, he argues that, “in clonal reproduction, by

contrast, and in the more advanced forms of manufacture to which it leads, we give existence to

a being not by what we are but by what we intend and design.”5 He fears that this distinction

would lead parents to stand over their children and view them as “artifacts”; testaments to their

legacy. In the eyes of their parents, nay, their creators, these cloned children would not be

people and other human beings, but rather things; achievements.

The third and most important objection against cloning that Kass raises in this section is

that the advancement of widespread cloning technology would force human reproduction down a

path towards commercialization. Kass believes that the natural end result of the advancement of

cloning technology is an unnatural descent into commodification. He states that this trend

towards commodification is “a virtually inescapable result of allowing babymaking to proceed

under the banner of commerce.”6 He fears the rise of the cloning and reproduction industry,

stating that, “Even before the capacity for human cloning arrives, established companies will

have invested in the harvesting of eggs from ovaries obtained at autopsy or through ovarian

surgery, practiced embryonic genetic alteration, and initiated the stockpiling of prospective

donor tissues.”7 Ultimately, he believes that this process will strip cloned humans of their

4 Both quotes taken from the first paragraph on 612.2.5 Kass states both in the second paragraph on 612.2.6 This can be found in the last paragraph on 612.2.7 Kass says this on 613.1.

Page 2 of 6

dignity and humanity, as procreation-to-the-highest-bidder will have made a commercial

mockery of a previously intimately human act.

Kass seemingly believes that the only recourse currently available is the immediate and

complete ban of all cloning research and development. Only through this can the moral

quandaries he elaborates upon be avoided. In fact, he goes as far as to state, “we should declare

that human cloning is unethical in itself and dangerous in its likely consequences,” and “we

should do all that we can to prevent the cloning of human beings. We should do this by means of

an international legal ban if possible, and by a unilateral national ban, at a minimum.” He

concludes, “we should allow all cloning research on animals to go forward, but the only safe

trench that we can dig across the slippery slope, I suspect, is to insist on the inviolable distinction

between animal and human cloning.”8

To be fair, all of Kass’s concerns are perfectly valid points. It would be difficult to argue

that the prospect of cloning technology becoming widespread would not lead to the mass

production of human beings. And it is reasonable to deduce that widespread cloning availability

would create the cloning industry and commercialize human reproduction. While he raises

potential moral quandaries tied to the prospect of cloning technology, these quandaries are not

caused by the technology itself but by human misuse.

Kass’s first argument is that cloning would lead to the mass production of human beings,

a sort of assembly line of human life. While this is a potential result from the advancement of

cloning technology (though a distant and far fetched end result), it is hardly a situation that is

unique to the technology of cloning. In fact, Kass himself identifies cloning as merely a step

towards the end result of human manufacture, and identifies in vitro fertilization and the genetic

testing of embryos as other steps in that direction. Thus, one can reasonably assume that mass

8 All quotes come from “Meeting Some Objections” which begins on 613.2.

Page 3 of 6

human production is a final end result of the development of those technologies as well. To be

concerned about the industrialization of procreation is surely valid, to imply that such

industrialization is solely a potential product of cloning and that eliminating cloning technology

will solve this problem is entirely misleading.

The second concern that Kass raises regarding the proliferation of cloning technology is

the potential for parents to create clones of themselves to have, not as children, but, as Kass

terms it, “artifacts.”9 Kass believes that cloning will allow people to stand above a clone of

themselves not as the parent of that child, but as the creator. He says, “as with any product of

our making, no matter how excellent, the artificer stands above it, not as an equal but as a

superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess.”10 He goes on to relate the scientists

currently involved in cloning research to the prospective parents of clones, stating, “scientists

who clone animals make it perfectly clear that they are engaged in instrumental making; the

animals are, from the start, designed as means to serve rational human purposes. In human

cloning, scientists and prospective “parents” would be adopting the same technocratic mentality

to human children: human children would be their “artifacts.”11 While it is surely a valid concern

to worry that the parents of clones will treat their children more as accomplishments or items

rather than other human beings, this is not a concern that dwells exclusively in the domain of

cloning. Even today, parents of actual, natural-born children treat them as objects or artifacts.

Popular culture is replete with examples of parents who are blessed with children of exceptional

talent and, instead of fostering and nurturing their gifted children to make them successful, they

push their children into things that the children are not comfortable doing. Society frequently

hears about parents who view their talented children less like human beings and more like

9 This term comes from the phrase “human children would be their artifacts” on page 612.2.10 Kass says this on 612.2.11 This argument comes after “intend and design” on 612.2.

Page 4 of 6

paychecks. While it is entirely possible that cloning will encourage parents to lord over their

children like they are a recently completed model train, this behavior is no more likely in the

parent of a cloned child than it is in the parent of a naturally born child and is not tied directly

with cloning itself.

Kass presents the third argument that the advancement of cloning technology will lead

human culture down a path of “commodification”12 of human procreation, with the process

becoming another product or service our capitalist society provides. He believes that cloning

will strip all “human equality, freedom and dignity”13 from cloned humans and force them to be

just another product packaged for consumption. A valid concern, but once again, it is not

exclusively a product of cloning technology. As reproductive technology progresses we seem

destined towards turning children into tailored products. Already we hear of the furor

surrounding the potential for “designer babies.” Already the adoption of babies with desirable

traits has created an industry for the children most in demand and has caused a strain on the

children not deemed desirable by the “consumer.” The commercialization of human procreation

is already a reality. Cloning technology may act a method for this commercialization, but it is

hardly the catalyst. The technology that Kass describes when detailing his objections to cloning

is decades away. Like all of Kass’s concerns, this one is a perfectly understandable objection,

but it is not an argument exclusively against cloning.

A potential rebuttal to the arguments presented is that cloning technology is a powerful

and unpredictable danger to present human culture. It is misleading to say that Kass’s arguments

are invalid solely because these problems exist outside of cloning and because the introduction of

these technologies would so dramatically alter the present dynamic. While it may be technically

12 The entire argument is the “Production and Commodification Objection”13 Last paragraph of 612.2

Page 5 of 6

true that the commodification of procreation exists independently of cloning, if cloning were to

be introduced it would so completely revolutionize the process, that it is impossible to say that

cloning is not a catalyst.

Ultimately, the concerns raised by Kass are not with cloning technology but with its

potential abuse by human beings. The technology is not unethical; by definition, the technology

cannot possess these traits or be evil. The potential use by humanity is what becomes unethical

and evil. It would be wrong to ban cloning simply because of the possibility to be misused by

unscrupulous individuals. If society were to ban or limit all technology based on the criteria of its

potential for abuse, then we would set back human development by centuries. The same

argument can be applied to presently available technologies like firearms. To ban the

technology, which has many perfectly acceptable and beneficial uses, because people can

possibly abuse it is irrational and morally wrong. No individual has the moral right to decide for

other individuals what they are and are not mature and responsible enough to use. To ban

cloning technology because of the promise of human irresponsibility is, well, irresponsible.

Kass raises several logical and valid concerns relating to the advancement of cloning

technology. He fears the technology’s impact on human culture and humanity and believes that

the only sound way of minimizing that impact is to prevent its further development. But Kass’s

concerns do not truly lie with the technology, but, in fact, humanity. If raised within the greater

context of our ability for the abuse of technology they would be perfectly acceptable, but to use

them as justification for banning a technology that has such grand potential is disingenuous.

Page 6 of 6