John Heath

Jeffery Wood
May 3, 2015
Ethics and Moral Problems
Take Home Final
Part 1: Genetic Engineering, the Cloning Factor
When looking at different moral problems, the one that might strike out as interesting is
Genetic Engineering and with that, cloning. As such I have come to the understanding that when
we look at different standpoints of Genetic Engineering. I think that the important part to discuss
is that of human cloning. Human Cloning has some interesting points of view that need to be
discussed. The point in affirmation of human cloning is that we could use the extra organs
provided from cloning to save lives. While discussed in several forms of media including Star
Trek: Enterprise, I feel that it needs to be discussed as it is a potential future for cloning. The
second argument supporting human cloning is that it could potentially be the way of the future
for reproduction as potentially brought up in Aldous Huxleys book A Brave New World. These
two points, I feel, represent the best opportunities for the justification of human cloning.
The first argument that needs to be examined is the potential use of organs to help others
in hospital. As terrible as it sounds with a potential of cloning, come the potential that we could
us the organs created to help save lives in others. As such the argument would call for us to
create a clone and then use its Organs to save another life. While some may feel that this clone is
a true person, there is the potential argument that these clones could not even be considered
people because they are not created by the gene pool of two people, but instead they are just a
copy and as such a cadaver that is okay to remove the organs from. This copy could not really be
called a person and as such we could say it would be okay to take the organs. I feel that even

Kant or Mill might agree with argument because one, to Kant the copy would not be a fully
rational person capable of reason and Mill would agree because it is achieving the greatest
amount of good for the greatest amount of people and to Mill people can get hurt to achieve this
goal.
The second argument could be pulled from A Brave New World where in the opening of
the book, the author takes the audience to a place where children are born, conditioned, and at
last turned loose to function into society. While this places an argument in the terms that these
are rational people, this is okay because there is a potential. What makes this argument so
interesting is that where humans are weak and pitiful, cloning could provide enhancements to
humanity and even could deal with that pesky problem of miscarriage and even do away with the
problem of Abortion. Everything could be made on a decision basis between two people that may
want to raise some one and there could be a society where nothing matters. These parts actually
help in coming to the conclusion that society could exist entirely off of cloning.
While there are many different things involved with Genetic Engineering, Human cloning
is something that could be done well. Human cloning could potentially reduce sickness and death
by providing people with organs that they need. Now not only is that a good potential future with
cloning yourself for organs, but there could be a future more perfectly built from cloning as a
reproductive method for society. If people were to be rational after cloning, I would say this is
very plausible as it could help in removing genetic deformities, helping to remove social
problems that associate with standard reproduction. To conclude these arguments may provide
some basic insight into the benefits of human cloning, I must admit that human cloning goes
against every fiber in my soul and if I had the space, I would continue to write about how wrong
human cloning is. That of course is a topic for another day.

Works Cited:
Coto, Many. "Similitude." Star Trek: Enterprise. Dir. LeVar Burton. 19 Nov. 2003. Television.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Part 2: Section 1
Question a).
When looking at Autonomy, we often think of being on our own or essentially being by
ones self. However, in philosophy it can have very different meanings. First to Mills
Utilitarianism, the notion of Autonomy is Liberty. Liberty to Mill can be defined as the ability
to do what we want. When looking at liberty we should try to foster Altruistic behaviors in
society. With that being Mills view on what Autonomy is, Kants view on Autonomy is very
different.
Kants version of Autonomy primarily focuses on the Will. The Will to Kant is
Autonomy or essentially the choosy thing Free Will or Agency. It plays a central role to Kants
philosophy because we need our free will to help determine the Categorical Imperative and
ultimately what is our duties. Our will is essentially autonomous and acting we are subject to our
own laws, and in that in part helps us to determine our duties. This is important because it needs
to be Autonomous when determining how we should treat rational people as it our autonomous
will gives us dignity and makes us moral agents.
An example of Mills will can be looked at in sense of democracy. When determining
what should be good for society, we should make democratic decisions, essentially with liberty.
However, when looking at liberty, we should not confine our decisions to the Tyranny of the
Majority. We should give a voice to everyone as liberty is the ability to do what we want with the
way any persons bedroom looks as liberty is the ability to do what we want.\
When looking on the opposite side of what Autonomy is to Kant, we can look at the way
we make our decisions when treating people. As our will is Autonomous, we need to look at
others when evaluating our decision. We are our own moral agents and as such should treat
people with the same degree of respect. For example, if a Nazi come to your door and asks if you
are hiding Jewish people. Kant, acknowledging this person has an autonomous will, would tell
the man where they are hiding or nothing at all.
Question b)
As equality is a very important concept to some philosophers, the two that have it central
to their philosophies in the way we treat people are Kant and Mill. To begin, when Kant looks at
Equality, he looks at it in the sense of his Categorical Imperative. The first part of course being a
universable maxim, but the second part is more important in view of equality and that is treating
every rational person as an end. In that sense we should treat those people equally because those

people deserve to be treated as an end. It should also be noted that people are equal in the
freedom to choose, a reference back to the previous question.
To Mill equality can be focused on Utilitarianism is focused on the greatest amount of
good for the greatest amount of people. We should focus on making the good the best for society
and to that degree equal. There can even be claim that it is similar to communism in it
distribution of things, or good from that perspective. Equality also takes a focus on moving
towards Altruism and that we should foster Altruism. The differences between these two notions
of equality is that while deontology focuses on Free Will and treating everyone as an end, Mill
actually believe that equality should be taught through Altruism and that free will is a lie. Also it
does not matter to Mill if people get hurt accomplishing this goal as its only the consequences
that matter, where Kant puts focus the person as an end in itself.
A concrete moral issue that DE ontologies notion could be applied to would again be the
Nazi example. Because we are treating people as an end, if the Nazi asks for the person that I am
hiding I can either not respond or tell him so that I may treat him equally.
In utilitarianism, a concrete moral issue that it might encounter could be when it
encounters the deals with the problem of the tyranny of the Majority. The tyranny of the majority
is where the majority of the population takes control of society, essentially removing the
Autonomous part of Liberty and is in itself not equal to the minority. The goal of mills
philosophy is the distribution of good needs to have some compromise between the minority and
the majority.
While many different philosophies have provided many thoughts on the idea of equality.
Mill and Kant have very different views.
Question c)
When looking at Aristotles Virtue Ethics they can be evaluated differently than Action
Ethics. Action Ethics asks what it means to be morally good, virtue ethic look at what it means to
be a good person. Then we look at virtue ethics, we need to look at a few different aspects that
help us determine virtues.
The idea of virtue and its theory is different in its application. The theory is based on a
case-by-case situation which eventually leads to Eudemonia and that of course can be translated
in reaching Ultimate happiness. Eudemonia can also state as an activity of the soul in accordance
with Virtue and there are specific traits and characteristics that make something a virtue. See
humans want a degree of Happiness but there are things that determine a virtue. They are
passions, faculties, and states of character with the very important aspect of habit. After we have
determined a specific virtue we need to practice and practice to make it a virtue and eventually
reaching a state of Eudemonia.
A contemporary moral problem that might do better problem following virtue ethics than
an action theory would be those associated to what we are and what it means to be a good person
in society. Action Theories try to ask what means to be moral and do not necessarily means to be
the good person itself.

Question d)
Nietzsche has some interesting ideas and gives what he calls the genealogy of morals. His
genealogy provides a history of what Morality is and provides information of how Morality has
progressed over time.
He argues in this sense that over the course of history, people have changed their
evaluation of what is moral. He then provides to different types of morality, the slave morality
and the master morality. He give differences to both and then claims that the Slave-morality has
taken over and he actually disagrees with this. He would actually like to see the return of the
master morality.
Society of the slave morality has left some implications and he claims some of the
implications of current values that society has. He believes that Modernity is in opposition,
language is a lie, he wants us to lie creatively and that there should be a will to power. There are
some implications to Virtue theory. Virtue theory actually hold some the characteristics to the
slave morality. As such some things that are trying to be achieved are actually and this is a very
severe problem with virtue ethics.
To conclude Nietzsche gives some insight to human history and his claims have some
values as to what is being said. He claims to be the anti-philosopher but shows some problems
with current human morality and points out the problems with virtue ethics.
Question e)
Karl Marx has had many different theories and often asked many different question as to
how we as humans should proceed. As such, Marx would gave some ideas that are right now
contrary to the many ways that many of us live. To lay out Marxs theories we would need to
discuss the difference in relationship to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, after that the
distinction of what we as humans should be really classified and finally how it can be compared
some contemporary moral problems.
To begin an important part to Marx is how he distinguishes to classes of people, the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is the elite part of society, they often decide was
is fashionable and they hold all the power in society where the proletariat is the worker and is
often directed by the elitist class. Now Marx often relates this to capitalism, and as such sees
Capitalism as the thing that alienates the proletariat and takes away the ideas and creations that
one could have as they are forced to build for the bourgeoisie. But this is where Marx
distinguishes what we as humans really are.
Marx sees the human race as Homofarber and not Homosapiens. Homofarber can be
defined as men who build stuff where Homosapien can be defined as men of thought. Marx
thought that the classification was incorrect because the history shows that men built before they
thought, at least in Marxs eyes. As such when men become alienated, and follow the hegemony
(follow and do things the way they are) they actually fall away from their own nature.
At this point, Marx calls for a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie
(whether is violent or not is up to the people, should be noted that Marx believed that it would be

violent). Then at this point Marx believed that society would be equal in the sense that everyone
would do things for their own, build for their and would be free of the oppression of the elitist
classes. I think some contemporary moral issues that could relate to this way of living could be
discussed in Gay Marriage and Capital punishment. Gay Marriage in the sense that to people
would be building a relationship together, I could see Marxs theory being applied that way
because society would not follow the hegemony of the white patriarchal male. Capital
Punishment in the sense that people would others to make their own decision when determining
justice.
Though Marxs theory is interesting and his labeling of classes very accurate, I could not
necessarily see it as being one hundred percent true.
Section 2
Question g)
The Ring of Gyges is story showing a problem with human nature and can go as far as
being a representation of moral skepticism. It gives the problem where if given the opportunity,
people will do what they want and will actually only work for yourself. So the story of The
Ring of Gyges can be a warning against power as it attempts to show that all men are
corruptible.
The story (I am paraphrasing) begins with an honest man, a man that most of us would
call, good. He works hard every day and does his best to show how hard he works. One day he
wakes up and walks outside to see a very deep whole. He takes a look down the whole and
decides to climb down there. He takes a little bit to get down there and he eventually does. Once
he reaches the bottom he notices a ring. He approaches the area where the ring is picks it up and
puts it on. He discover that he is invisible. So, the ring is cool as he determines and so he climbs
up and continues with his normal day. After a little bit he comes to the realization that he can do
whatever he wants and proceed to do so. He sleeps with whoever he wants, he takes whatever he
wants, and basically just does what he wants.
The moral of the story is this, people receive infinite power, he shows his true colors and
really it shows that all men are selfish because it is concluded that anyone would do the same
thing in his position and the implication would be that all men are selfish and the Moral Skeptics
are right.
Question h)
While many philosophies and philosophers have given many moral theory pertaining to
what we are. Charles Darwin actually gives his origin of what we are and how we have
developed. While Darwin gives this perspective, David Hume has some similar perspectives to
Darwins theory.
When we look at what Darwin provides, he states that we are social creatures and that our
development consists of 4 steps and they are sympathy, consciousness, language, and Habit &
Custom. With this he makes the claims that we are moral through the origins of our development.
Hume gives a similar perspective in that we all have characteristics and feelings and notions in

our character. Hume believes that we all are altruistic and at that point have notions of altruism.
This is similar to Darwins sympathy as well as we are all social creatures. If we are all social
creatures, then altruism has an effect in our development.
To conclude, both Darwin and Hume are similar in their structure, in that we all have
things that are apart of us.
Questions 1 and 2
1
When looking at capital punishment, abortion and Euthanasia, each moral problem has
major philosophical similarity. That similarity is when we discus Human life and death. When
we look at each part, abortion focuses on the death of the fetus, Capital Punishment deals with
the execution of prisoners that did a very bad crime and Euthanasia deals with the right to death.
Ultimately, the question arises of whether or not we can need to be in favor of all of these due to
this similarity. I think that you can have a different position for each of these situations.
The reasons why I have to say that you dont have agree with all of them if you agree
with one is due to the way each problem is structured. When looking at what is being discussed,
each problem can be defined differently. When you look at Abortion it deals with the fetus,
Capital punishment with a criminal, and euthanasia talks about ones right to death. Each problem
is and can be, defined differently. We cannot look at a fetus and claim it is a person who has
committed a crime. One cannot look at a fetus and say that it has the right and is capable of
terminating itself in the womb does not make a whole lot of sense.\
To conclude, I think that even though there is a similarity or in other words a correlation
between each subject, but it does not change the type of material between each topic. With that, I
feel that one cannot justify each topic as agree with one agree with all.
2
When looking and evaluating by the way the stereotypical American lives, there could be
an argument made against it. One could even say that the way Americans live is immoral. The
first argument is the way resources are distributed. The second way we can evaluate it is the
amount of power in the American lifestyle. The third argument is that we are what we buy.
The first argument can be evaluated as the all resources are distributed. When we take a look at
all the resources used a majority of it is taken by the general American consumer. If the
American consumer were redistribute resources and live within our promise, more resources
would be allocated to other people in need. We could effectively make it easier for others around
the world. The current distribution of resources is negatively affected those in poverty.
The second argument that can be made against the way Americans live is the amount of
power that Americans hold in the world. The quote power corrupts, absolute power corrupts can
help to evaluate the problem that we as Americans ask for all the power and control and as one
can expect, American society has become corrupt with the amount of power it has.

The third argument that can be made against American society is that Americans are,
what they buy. The cars, the homes, and just things in general. When looking at it Americans
hold the image of being powerful.