Hayry Matti
Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK.
Bioethics. 2003 Oct;17(5-6):447-59. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00360.
Can philosophers come up with persuasive reasons to allow or ban human reproductive cloning? Yes. Can philosophers agree, locally and temporarily, which practices related to cloning should be condoned and which should be rejected? Some of them can. Can philosophers reproduce universally convincing arguments for or against different kinds of human cloning? No. This paper analyses some of the main arguments presented by philosophers in the cloning debate, and some of the most important objections against them. The clashes between the schools of thought suggest that philosophers cannot be trusted to provide the public authorities, or the general public, a unified, universally applicable view of the morality of human reproductive cloning.
哲学家们能否提出有说服力的理由来允许或禁止人类生殖性克隆？能。哲学家们能否在局部和暂时的范围内就与克隆相关的哪些做法应被宽容、哪些应被摒弃达成一致？部分哲学家能。哲学家们能否就支持或反对不同类型的人类克隆提出普遍令人信服的论据？不能。本文分析了哲学家们在克隆辩论中提出的一些主要论据，以及针对这些论据的一些最重要的反对意见。不同思想流派之间的冲突表明，不能指望哲学家们为公共当局或普通大众提供关于人类生殖性克隆道德性的统一、普遍适用的观点。
