Option 1 is murder, plain and simple, and is not morally acceptable under any circumstances, much less when there are other options available. Even if the clone has only the psyche of a newborn, well, it’s not acceptable to murder newborns, either, now is it?
Options 2 and 3, I have no objection to, and it seems sensible to develop both, since they fit into different niches (method 3, despite being more expensive, does at least have the advantage of being quicker). Yeah, they are kind of squicky, but those who have love of sausages or of replacement body parts should never watch either being made.
And sharing of dessert and being a monster are not mutually exclusive, as any watcher of Sesame Street can attest.
I’d be fine with #2 and #3. #1 depends on the results of a brain force grown to maturity; an adult brain lacks the plasticity of a fetus, much less newborn and lacking the proper time and input to develop it may well be for all ethical purposes brain dead.
Souls are irrelevant, even if they existed. A mindless lump with a soul is still just a mindless lump; while killing a thinking, feeling person is still murder even if they have no soul. It’s a small step from equating killing things with souls as murder to people claiming that killing people they don’t like isn’t murder because they have no souls, or inferior souls.
Organ cloning is fine but number 2 is essentially creating thousands of brainless human beings for the sole purpose of organ harvesting. I find it to be a more horrifying idea then even abortion, TBH.
It’s as much to do with that Internet thing of not being able to make the more subtle inferences that one could in a face to face conversation.
I don’t think slippery slope arguments are fallacious just because they are slippery slope arguments, but if they’re correct, they’re still slippery slope arguments. In this case, I think your argument is wrong, but I could be persuaded otherwise.
I don’t know about the planetary distinction, this is a discussion of ethics and I don’t see that as being limited by galactic coordinates (although I firmly believe that Skald’s World will be hellish).
We almost have method 3 here and now, hopefully within the next 10 years. We don’t know if methods 1 or 2 will ever be possible, far too many unknowns. What we do have currently is the ability to grow on demand two organs, skin and bladders (3 if you count rabbit penile erectile tissue), skin is routinely used to treat burns, bladders in trials for people born with certain urological conditions and rabbit penises for fun. We can also grow bovine tissue for meat, pulpy but meaty.
We’re happy to eat natural meat (most westerners that is, not all), we may be happy to eat artificial meat (even some vegetarians), we implant pig heart valves and use various other animal derived medical products. We even use used human organs in transplants. Where does the difference lie between growing a hamburger or heart valve, and growing me a replacement set of lungs?
What is the difference between a brainless human being and a pig used for sausages?
Arguably the pig is more self-aware and therefore should be given more consideration with regards to ethical treatment. I like meat, but I try to always purchase ethically produced meat, because causing suffering is wrong. However, a brain is required for suffering, so clones will not suffer.
The only real objection is the emotional response, and that is weak in the face of real human suffering which will be ended by utilising the organs of clones.
Therefore it would be immoral to outlaw the technology to produce brainless clones.
I expect people will get over it when/if it becomes possible and useful. Rather like autopsies, which were once considered too horrific to allow, but are now accepted by most people as an occasional distasteful necessity.
The brainy pig looks like a pig. The brain-dead human looks like a human. Animals are not people, they are a different species and we treat them as such.
Not to mention that, even in the absence of EKG activity, it is difficult/impossible to convince oneself beyond all shadow of a doubt that the person lying there is truly incapable of thinking or feeling. How do I know they don’t have Locked-In Syndrome? How do I know they’re not living an existence of hellacious pain but are merely unable to communicate it? We’ve all heard the horror stories of people who were conscious through surgery, lying there apparently insensate while suffering incredible pain the entire time. To the casual observer, there is NO difference between this tragedy and method 1.
If the clone lacks a physical brain, it will never be conscious. Everything that makes me me resides in the couple of kilos of jelly in my skull, remove that and I cease to be me.
I’m not even entirely sure that I am the same person I was six weeks ago, I had a general anaesthetic about a month ago and it is entirely possible that the cessation of my consciousness that accompanied that GA was actually the death of that me, and the person that awoke was an entirely new me with all the memories of the old me. I have no way of knowing.
That’s a bit of an aside though.
We already harvest organs from ‘brain dead’ individuals, and few people have a problem with that, the cloning of brainless bodies is not really any different.
As I said, reducing the amount of suffering in the world is a good thing. If cloning brainless clones reduces the total amount of suffering, without causing any suffering itself, then it would be immoral to ban it simply because it makes some people uncomfortable.
Maybe “soul” was the wrong word to use; I think what I meant is the consciousness, the self-aware thing inside each of us that makes “me” a “me.” Growing self-aware humans to kill them for their organs seems as wrong to me as someone killing me for my organs.
Consent is the difference. Organ donors (or the legal guardians of a brain-dead child) must consent before organs are removed. The default assumption is that one is not an organ donor, and so organ harvesting is not the default activity. If we cannot communicate with these cloned individuals, they are incapable of consenting to the procedure. And a lack of consent can never be a yes. It’s similar to the debate about “no means no” vs. “yes means yes and anything that isn’t a yes is a no. Including silence, maybe, or probably.”
But someone other than the brain dead person- the legal guardian- can already consent to organ harvesting. So what’s the difference? I’m not getting it.
Personally, I think being an organ donor should be the default anyway, with an opt out easily available. I can’t see any reason why the presumed wishes of dead people who have not stated a preference should take precedence over the life and health of living people.
The reason isn’t healthcare. The reason is making money. Healthcare is just the vehicle.
I don’t share your horrification criteria (i.e., #1 is more revolting than #2) btu I don’t think your reaction is odd. The cerebrum-free clones would probably look ghastlier; they arouse a more visceral reaction than the normal-looking clones.
Speaking as a poster and not as OP, I will say that the whole clone procedure is worse than the majority of slave cultures that have existed in our history.
Assuming you grant that RI is telling the truth about what’s done in the brain-free option, how is it any ethically different than the single-organ option? What takes it closer to the limit?
The legal guardian can only consent to organ donation on behalf of a minor child or incompetent adult, with the thought that they know best what that person would want to happen. Are you really comfortable with granting legal guardianship to the guy in charge of cloning? There’s no emotional bond, so the guardian in this case cannot begin to determine what their ward’s wishes are.
It’s more than that, they never had any wishes, and never had the ability to have any wishes. They aren’t, and have never been sentient. Infact, I would say that they have less standing with regards their ethical treatment than a pig, and we’re happy to slaughter those for all sorts of reasons (including fun, if you’re a hunter).
Happily eating meat, but then rejecting the use of brainless clones in medical care seems to me to be purely speciesism, unless you can demonstrate that there is something inherently special about a brainless clone that a brainy pig doesn’t possess.
The burden of proof lies with those who would grant special status to brainless clones.