Cloning is one of the controversial topics in this day and age, and with the media and technology implanting the idea of cloning in our psyche by using it in various films and fiction novels some people started to develop right and left views on this purely scientific topic as some believe that cloning is destructive and will lead to bad consequences to our nature as humans while other people believe that cloning is something that we will likely benefit from and can help us cure different diseases. I will be writing about two articles. “Narcissus Cloned” which was published in 1994 by John Conley who is a professor of philosophy at Fordham University and his view point on cloning is negative and argues how cloning bad for us and against our humanity and how is cloning could have negative effects as it is against our human nature. Instead, the article “The Moral Imperative for Human Cloning” which was published in 2004 by the Scottish embryologists Ian Wilmut talks about the bright side of cloning and how cloning could benefit the health care industry immensely. In this paper, The two articles convey their opposing arguments through differences in strategy used to persuade readers, justifications used to support their arguments and
The profession a person has certainly affects not only his view on various topics but also the way he tackles these issues whether it is done logically or pathologically since a persons background influence the person and makes him/her prone to accept ideas that are in line with the way he or she is educated, and it clear in Wilmut article that he supports cloning because as a scientist he thrives for more knowledge even if it led him past the moral walls constructed by our society. For example, he proposes the benefits in the production of any type cell that could benefit patients with accidents (p.367), yet, he does not try to present only the positive aspect of such treatment and hide the negative...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document