In this blog post, we consider the choices we have to make in an era where technology is outpacing humans. Consider how to set ethical standards.
Technology may have scientific, social, or other benefits in and of itself, but it will not have an ethical consensus within it, which means that humans will need to develop an ethical consensus around it. The word “science” in our common usage implies “technology” in the sense of something that can be useful to humans. These technologies can make our lives easier and contribute to a better quality of life, but they can also raise ethical issues.
We believe that the meaning of science and technology is limited by what technology can accomplish, which means that for science and technology to be recognized as a useful tool for people, a number of agreements, including ethical ones, are needed. However, in this process, people often struggle because they don’t have clear criteria for evaluating science and technology, especially in an era when it is difficult to define what values are absolutely worth pursuing, let alone determine what is right or wrong in ethical terms.
In this situation, we need to consider that advances in science and technology are not just technical innovations, but also the broader impact they have on human society. For example, advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence have become deeply embedded in our daily lives, but there are also concerns that these technologies may infringe on personal freedom and privacy. As technology advances, we should enjoy the benefits it brings, but at the same time, thoroughly analyze and prepare for its possible side effects.
I also think it is difficult to reach a consensus on other aspects that are difficult to explain scientifically, such as religious aspects. However, just because it is difficult to evaluate, it is dangerous to make a decision based on scientific benefits alone or to make a decision that does not fit the current situation of people. In this situation, it is essential to regulate and manage the use of technology based on ethical standards agreed upon by society as a whole.
The first problem with human cloning is the issue of human dignity. When talking about human dignity, most scientists focus on the issue of when an embryo is considered to be a life, with the main issue being the point at which it is considered to be a life. In other words, they make their arguments on strictly scientific grounds, but in a situation where more than half of the world’s population has a religion that believes that God created life, non-scientific arguments are also important, because, as we said earlier, consensus is necessary for science to be recognized.
From a Christian perspective, which believes in the existence of a creator, human cloning is beyond the power of God. Since they believe that only God can create life, they are opposed to the act of giving life to a being other than God. In the case of humans, the creation of a new genetic makeup through sexual reproduction is described as something that only God can do. Therefore, the idea of humans artificially combining genetic configurations is perceived as a challenge to God. For those with a strong belief in God, this is the strongest argument. But the issue of human dignity is not only raised in religious terms.
It is also an ethical issue, as evidenced by Immanuel Kant’s maxim that human beings should be treated as ends and not as means. In other words, where each human being has a unique subjectivity, human cloning is problematic because it reduces people to commodities that can be created with specific intentions. From this perspective, human cloning is not just a technological achievement, but a serious ethical challenge that could threaten the intrinsic value of human beings.
Let’s take a look at human cloning in a more practical context. The first and most common purpose of human cloning is reproductive issues, such as people who are unable to have children due to infertility or homosexuality. It can fulfill the right to reproduction for people who are unable to reproduce in the natural state. Here, human cloning can bring happiness to people by fulfilling their rights, but human dignity is threatened because it involves agency: the genes of one fetus are intentionally chosen by another. Of course, subjectivity has different meanings in different times.
It would also lead to the commodification of human beings in the sense that others would be able to selectively determine the characteristics of an individual. In many ways, it’s hard to argue that infertile or homosexual couples would benefit more from choosing human cloning over adoption or in vitro fertilization.
The second most common use of human cloning is for medical purposes, such as organ transplantation. Here, some justify the use of embryos without considering their stage as life. Of course, it’s easy to ignore the embryo because it’s a potential being that doesn’t have a voice yet, but we should focus on the possibility that it could become a person with morals in the future.
To summarize, science and technology can only be recognized as science and technology if there is a consensus among people living in the present day on various aspects, including ethical, social, and economic. In this process, we have overlooked many aspects, and this is a problem that cannot be taken lightly. In this regard, human cloning is still premature in many ways, including religious and ethical aspects. In addition, as science and technology develops, we should not only look at the positive aspects of technology, but also seriously consider the various ethical and social issues that may arise from it, and prepare appropriate responses to them.
