Can human cloning truly increase social utility from a utilitarian perspective?

This article analyzes human cloning from a utilitarian perspective, arguing that the sacrifice of many lives in the cloning process and the social roles of cloned humans are likely to decrease utility in the long run.

 

In chapter 1 of his book The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights, the American philosopher Hilary Putnam articulates his reasons for opposing human cloning. He proposes the concept of “moral objection” and argues against human cloning based on intuitive and sensory reasons, not logical and rational analysis. However, I believe that these intuitive and sensory reasons, although they may convince others unconsciously, are not valid to convince people in public. Therefore, I would like to analyze human cloning from a utilitarian perspective and write a logical essay against it based on my rational judgment.
Generally speaking, utilitarianism has a lot of room to argue in favor of human cloning. This is because human cloning can improve the quality of life through medical procedures such as treating terminal diseases and replacing organs, and society as a whole can be improved by cloning genetically superior humans. However, when examining the above rationales in light of Jeremy Bentham’s fundamental principle of utilitarianism – “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” – there are several holes. Therefore, I will argue against human cloning by analyzing its process and purpose on utilitarian grounds.
There are a few premises that need to be made before the argument. First, for the purposes of this discussion, I will define “cloned human beings” as organisms created using nuclear replacement technology. As biotechnology rapidly advances, it may be possible to clone whole organisms or even tissues, but the phrase “cloned humans” generally refers to individuals, since nuclear replacement is currently the only way to create them. Second, while there is a debate about “can we view humans and cloned humans equivalently?”, I would argue that we can view them both equivalently as a single life. What is important in utilitarianism is that the units used to calculate the axioms are the same. Biologically speaking, the DNA of a cloned human is identical to the DNA of a human, and they have the same appearance, biochemical processes, metabolic processes, and so on. Therefore, biologically speaking, humans and clones have the same units and are equivalent. Third, the evidence presented in this discussion is based on the current situation and level of technology. We don’t know how society will change and how technology will evolve in the future. Of course, it’s possible that they will develop in a positive direction, but that’s speculation, and we’ll stick to the present for the sake of accurate numbers and logical arguments.
Let’s start the argument. The first argument against human cloning from a utilitarian point of view is that the process of cloning a human would result in a negative total utilitarian payoff. Let’s take a look at the process leading up to the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep. Cloning requires a technique called nuclear transfer, which involves swapping the nuclei of an unfertilized egg and an adult cell, and in Dolly’s case, it took more than 430 attempts, meaning that more than 430 unfertilized eggs were used. The nuclear transfer attempts resulted in 277 reconstructed embryos, of which only 29 were implanted in the uterus of a female sheep, resulting in the birth of the one and only Dolly. This means that 277 embryos out of more than 430 eggs were used to create one life, Dolly the cloned sheep. Eggs can be excluded from the equation because they are not considered life, but embryos are considered life 14 days after fertilization because they have primitive glands that grow into a spine, so they should be treated as life when calculating the equation. In other words, 277 lives suffered for the happiness of one life, so the overall equation is negative. Of course, one could argue against this rationale by saying, “Can we use the example of sheep cloning to argue against human cloning?” or “There is a difference between sheep and humans”. However, there are currently no human cloning experiments, so we’re using the cloned sheep as the most analogous example. Also, no matter how advanced the technology is today, cloning efficiency is still only 16.7%, which means that many lives are sacrificed for one. Since the cloning efficiency refers to the probability that a living being will be born after implanting a nuclear-swapped embryo into a surrogate mother, the actual overall efficiency is lower than this. Therefore, if you calculate the axiomatic value of the cloning process, it will decrease, which is why we oppose human cloning.
Second, if we calculate the utility of human cloning in terms of society as a whole, the utility decreases. Let’s assume that human cloning is successful, but not the cloning process. Proponents of human cloning often argue that society would benefit from cloning people with medical perspectives, genius, or innate talents. However, from a medical perspective, at least one cloned human would be needed to treat a patient’s terminal illness or replace an organ. This means that the happiness of one patient requires the unhappiness of at least one cloned human, thus reducing the axiom. Also, consider the argument for cloning genetically superior people to improve society. In the short term, this argument may be valid. However, in the long run, if cloned humans continue to be used in fields that require genetic talent, others will not strive to advance in those fields. Since competition is eliminated, there will be no advancement in the field, and the end result will be a stagnant society, with fewer axioms than without human cloning.
So far, I have presented the process and purpose of human cloning as an argument against the utilitarian view. However, the utilitarian view is not always correct, and there are certainly positive aspects of human cloning. Therefore, as a society, we need to discuss human cloning from a variety of perspectives in order to reach a social consensus and resolve bioethical issues related to human cloning and beyond.