This blog post analyzes human cloning from a utilitarian viewpoint, examining whether its process and purpose increase social utility.
American philosopher Hilary Putnam outlined his reasons for opposing human cloning in Chapter 1 of his book ‘The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights’. He introduced the concept of “moral intuition,” arguing that his opposition to human cloning was based on intuitive and sensational reasons rather than logical and rational analysis. However, I believe that while such intuitive and sensory grounds may unconsciously persuade an individual, they lack the validity to persuade people in a public forum. Therefore, I intend to analyze human cloning from a utilitarian perspective based on rational judgment and write a logical essay opposing it.
It is often thought that viewing human cloning from a utilitarian perspective offers ample grounds for support. This is because human cloning could potentially improve quality of life through medical procedures like curing incurable diseases or performing organ transplants, and it could also lead to the cloning of genetically superior individuals, thereby advancing society as a whole. However, examining these arguments through the fundamental principle of utilitarianism advocated by Jeremy Bentham—namely, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”—reveals several flaws. Therefore, I intend to oppose human cloning by analyzing its process and purpose based on utilitarian grounds.
Before proceeding with the argument, several premises must be established. First, in this discussion, “cloned humans” will be defined as life forms created using nuclear transfer technology. Although rapidly advancing biotechnology could enable cloning at the tissue or organ level rather than the whole organism, the term “cloned human” generally refers to the entire individual, and nuclear transfer technology remains the almost exclusive method for creating them to date. Second, while debate exists over whether “humans and cloned humans can be considered equivalent,” I will treat both humans and cloned humans as equivalent living beings. In utilitarianism, it is crucial that the units used to calculate utility be the same. Biologically, the DNA of a cloned human matches that of a human, and everything—appearance, biochemical processes, metabolic processes—is identical. Therefore, biologically speaking, humans and cloned humans share the same unit and can be considered equivalent. Third, the arguments presented in this discussion are judged based on the current situation and technological level. How society will change and technology will develop in the future is unknown. While positive development is possible, this remains conjecture. For precise figures and logical argumentation, I will base my discussion on the present.
Now, I will begin the argument. The first reason opposing human cloning from a utilitarian perspective is that when calculating the overall utility in the human cloning process, the result is negative. Let’s examine the process leading up to the birth of the cloned sheep, Dolly. Cloning requires so-called nuclear transfer technology, which involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with that of an adult cell. In Dolly’s case, there were over 430 attempts. This means over 430 unfertilized eggs were used. The nuclear transfer attempts resulted in 277 reconstituted embryos, of which only 29 embryos were implanted into the uterus of a female sheep, ultimately leading to the birth of Dolly. This signifies that to bring one cloned sheep, Dolly, into existence, 277 embryos were used out of over 430 eggs. While oocytes are difficult to consider living organisms and can be excluded when calculating the utility, embryos develop a primitive streak that grows into a spine after 14 days of fertilization and are therefore considered living beings. Thus, they must be treated as such when calculating utility. In other words, for the happiness of one life, 277 lives suffered, resulting in a net negative utility. Of course, one could counter this argument by asking, “Can we oppose human cloning based on sheep cloning?” or “There are differences between sheep and humans.” However, since human cloning experiments have not yet been conducted, the most analogous case—cloned sheep experiments—was used as evidence. Furthermore, even with current technological advances, cloning efficiency remains only about 16.7%, meaning the situation where many lives are sacrificed for one still persists. Since cloning efficiency refers to the probability of a living being being born after implanting a nucleus-swapped embryo into a surrogate mother, the actual overall efficiency is even lower than this. Therefore, calculating the utility during the cloning process actually results in a decrease, leading to opposition to human cloning.
Second, calculating the overall societal utility of human cloning reveals a net decrease in utility. Let’s assume human cloning succeeds, disregarding the cloning process itself. Proponents often argue that cloning individuals with exceptional medical conditions, genius-level intelligence, or innate talents could advance society. However, from a medical perspective, curing one patient’s incurable disease or performing an organ transplant requires at least one cloned human. This means that the happiness of one patient necessitates the unhappiness of at least one cloned human, thereby reducing the overall utility. Furthermore, consider the argument that cloning genetically superior individuals will drive societal progress. In the short term, this argument may seem valid. However, in the long term, if cloned humans are continuously used in fields requiring genetic talent, others will cease striving to advance in those fields. Without competition, progress in those fields ceases, leading to societal stagnation. Ultimately, this results in a decrease in the total utility compared to a world without human cloning.
Thus far, I have presented arguments opposing the process and purpose of human cloning from a utilitarian perspective. While the utilitarian viewpoint cannot always be deemed correct, and positive aspects of human cloning certainly exist, it is essential for society to engage in discussions from diverse perspectives. Only through social consensus can we resolve the issues of human cloning and the broader bioethical questions it raises.
