In this paper I intend to discuss the ethics of human cloning. The process of cloning humans for mankind's benefit has long been a controversial issue. But to understand the different viewpoints one might take, one also needs knowledge of what a clone is. Simply put, a clone is an artificial identical twin. Scientists remove a couple cells from an embryo and basically "inject" the extracted DNA into an empty zygote. The new clone and it's original will have the same exact appearance and gene makeup. However, the personality can be completely different. A cloned Hitler would have the capacity for doing the same as it's original, but it might not choose to do so. Science has not yet perfected this process however. Side effects and deformities, occasionally life-threatening, are a somewhat common occurrence. However, the benefits to be gained from cloning are so numerous that it creates a strong case for pro-cloning activists. Imagine giving a quadriplegic back their ability to walk. We could cure heart disease, or even clone a new healthy heart for transplanting. On the other hand, "for each blessing of modern technology, a corresponding risk comes into being" (Pojman, p. 895).
Environmentalist ethics shows us that we are creatures of self-interest and if it doesn"t affect you then it's not a problem. Would creating clones affect the individual? Maybe it would, if only for the better well-being and prolonged lifespan of our race. However, increasing life expectancy can contribute to over population in our future. But if we aren"t around to see the problem, why should we worry about it?.
It's easy to see how a Utilitarian would view this issue. If there's good to be gained, then go for it. This technology could find answers to questions about our bodies, our genetics, and maybe even about life itself. With so many gains to the human race, it would be hard to have any other view than pro-cloning.