In this blog post, we explore what choices we must make in an era where technology outpaces humanity. Let’s consider together how to establish ethical standards.
Science and technology may inherently possess scientific, social, or even greater benefits, but they will not inherently contain ethical consensus. That is, humanity must derive ethical consensus regarding science and technology. The word ‘science,’ as we commonly use it, inherently implies ‘technology’ – meaning something that can be used to benefit humans. While such technology makes human life more convenient and contributes to improving quality of life, it simultaneously has the potential to cause ethical problems.
I believe the meaning of science and technology is limited by what technology can achieve. That is, for science and technology to be recognized as useful tools for people, various agreements, including ethical aspects, are necessary. However, people often struggle in this process because they lack clear criteria for evaluating science and technology. Especially in this era where it is difficult to define what values should be pursued absolutely, judging right and wrong from an ethical perspective is certainly challenging.
In such circumstances, we must consider that the advancement of science and technology extends beyond mere technical innovation to encompass its far-reaching impact on human society. For instance, while cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence have deeply penetrated our daily lives, concerns exist that such technologies may infringe upon individual freedom and privacy. As technology advances, we must thoroughly analyze and prepare for its potential side effects while simultaneously enjoying its benefits.
Furthermore, I believe it is difficult to reach consensus from multifaceted perspectives, such as religious aspects, which are difficult to explain scientifically. However, it is dangerous to make judgments based solely on scientific benefits or to make decisions that do not align with the current reality of people simply because evaluation is difficult. In such situations, it is essential to regulate and manage the use of technology based on agreed-upon ethical standards across society.
First, among the problems with human cloning is the issue of human dignity. When discussing human dignity, most scientists primarily address the key question of when, during embryonic development, a life begins, and they build their arguments around this. That is, they present arguments based on highly scientific grounds. However, in a world where more than half the global population belongs to religions that believe God created life, non-scientific arguments also carry significant weight. As mentioned earlier, for science and technology to gain acceptance, consensus across multiple perspectives is necessary.
From a Christian perspective that believes in the existence of a Creator, human cloning is an act of usurping God’s authority. Because they believe only God can create life, they reject the very act of any other being bestowing life. Particularly in the case of humans, the creation of new genetic combinations through sexual reproduction is explained as a realm only God can intervene in. Therefore, humans artificially combining genetic material is perceived as a challenge to God. For those with a firm belief in God, this is the most powerful argument.
However, the issue of human dignity is not raised solely from a religious perspective. As evident in Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative that humans must not be used as means but treated as ends in themselves, it also poses an ethical problem. That is, given that each human individual possesses inherent subjectivity, human cloning is problematic because it reduces humans to commodities produced according to specific intentions.
From this perspective, human cloning is viewed as a serious ethical challenge that threatens the essential value of humanity, going beyond mere technological achievement.
Now, let’s examine human cloning using a more practical example. The primary purpose of human cloning is to address reproductive issues for those unable to have children due to infertility or homosexuality. It could realize the reproductive rights of those unable to conceive naturally. While human cloning could bring happiness by fulfilling this right, the deliberate selection of a fetus’s genes by another person threatens human dignity by undermining subjectivity. Of course, the meaning of subjectivity varies with the times.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the ability for others to selectively determine an individual’s characteristics will lead to the commodification of humans. Considering various aspects, it cannot be said that the benefits gained by infertile or same-sex couples choosing human cloning over adoption or in vitro fertilization are greater.
The second major purpose of human cloning is for medical purposes, such as organ transplantation. Here, some justify the use of embryos by not viewing the embryonic stage as a living being. While embryos are indeed potential beings without a voice and thus easily disregarded, we must focus on the possibility that they could become moral persons in the future.
In summary, science and technology can only be recognized as such when consensus is reached among people living in the present era regarding its ethical, social, economic, and other aspects. In this process, we have overlooked various aspects, and this is by no means a problem to be taken lightly. From this perspective, human cloning is still premature in many respects, including religious and ethical considerations. Furthermore, as science and technology advance, we must not only look at the positive aspects of technology but also seriously consider the various ethical and social problems that may arise from it and prepare appropriate countermeasures.
