Our world has evolved in so many ways over the years, both physically and intelligently. We as human beings have evolved right along with it. When we think of sciences, we immediately think about how things work, and how the human mind “works”; but when we think about being morally philosophical, we think what humans ought to be and what they out to think. These ideas lead into philosopher Joshua Greene’s views on deontology vs. consequences.
Ultimately Greene thinks there is no external fact about what is right or wrong but the best we can do is be consistent with our values as they are. So, what does this mean? One good example is the infamous “trolley example” where there ...view middle of the document...
Doing this study in class, our results concluded the same thing that most people would pull the switch, yet only a few would push a person in front of the trolley. Seeing I am a science nerd I came to conclude my moral philosophical experiment with bioethics. As we are moving into the future, science and technology keeps growing and growing, leading us to be able to do and manipulate things that may not be ethical.
My experiment is about human cloning. A group of scientists are able to make human clones, that have identical genetic codes and DNA as the original person. They decide to make a business out of these clones, a “black market” so to say. How their business works is that they have their offices way out where nobody knows and they raised these clones in a controlled civilization. They grow it from a pod, brain washing it about its life, so when it is born as an adult they think they had a past and memories and what not. This is so the clone is more human like and more of an a exact match to their original person. The original person would buy this clone, so in case anything happened to them, like they needed a heart transplant, or got cancer, they would use their clone as a back up for parts or to keep them alive. The thing is though, the “owners” don’t know that the scientist are actually raising the clones as human beings in another life, they were told their exact parts were all just in a genetic sac and were just ready whenever they needed them.
Okay, so here is where problems start to kick in. The scientist didn’t think of the consequences of raising actual clones. They are just like human beings, and are able to think, process situations, and develop the brain and become more intelligent. They learn from mistakes, they are seekers to find things out, and of course they have feelings; both physically and emotionally. Humans are very curious beings, and like to question things, and explore and solve problems, these traits are also in these clones, which they could find out situations they weren’t meant to find out.
So, when a person becomes ill and needs his/her, “life insurance, the clone” it is taking and pretty much slaughtered for parts, so the original owner has its exact match and wouldn’t have to wait for a donor. Many people would do this sort of life insurance by arguing that it’s not a real person, it’s themselves, it would save their lives because they wouldn’t have to wait for a matched donor, etc. But they don’t know how their parts are “harvested”. If in fact that the owner of the clone saw that it was an actual human being, life like, and looked exactly like them, their thoughts would take a different turn. If they saw that in order to get those parts, the scientist had to physically kill the clone, less people would get this type of life insurance. They would see it as murder, rather than saving their lives.
This experiment shows the deontological views of how humans behave. Not once did the...