Rational Morality

The film The Island depicts a biotech company creating conscious clones for organ harvesting, keeping them sedated and ignorant of their purpose. This scenario is clearly immoral; the clones are sentient beings with subjective experiences, and using them as spare parts violates their fundamental worth as conscious entities.

But the film's nightmare scenario should not be used to condemn all biotechnology. Opposition to advances in this field is largely irrational, driven by emotion and religious doctrine rather than careful reasoning.

The Stem Cell Contradiction

Consider the opposition to stem cell research. Embryos at the stage used for research lack consciousness entirely. They have no subjective experience, no awareness, no capacity for suffering. They would otherwise be discarded. Using them to develop treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and spinal cord injuries is not immoral; it is the rational choice.

There is a contradiction worth noting. Those who oppose stem cell research on moral grounds often support policies that result in actual human deaths. The same administration that refused funding for embryonic stem cell research authorized military deployments that resulted in American casualties. An embryo without consciousness is afforded more moral consideration than conscious adults. This is not rational morality.

The "Playing God" Objection

Regarding human cloning, objections based on concepts like "playing God," violating dignity, or tampering with nature lack rational foundation.

Humans have always manipulated their environment; it is part of our nature. We are not separate from nature; we are an expression of it. Every technology we develop, from fire to agriculture to medicine, represents "tampering with nature." The objection proves too much; if taken seriously, it would prohibit all technological development.

Concerns about creating conscious beings for exploitation are legitimate and addressable. We don't need to clone humans for organs; alternative technologies like nanobot-based biological enhancement could achieve the same medical goals without creating new conscious entities.

Beyond Flawed Moral Systems

Peter Voss articulates a useful framework distinguishing between flawed moral systems and what he calls "Rational Morality."

Social relativism holds that whatever a culture deems acceptable is moral. But cultural customs vary wildly, and many have endorsed practices we now recognize as abhorrent. Slavery was once culturally accepted. Cultural acceptance cannot be the standard.

Religious doctrine claims moral authority from divine command. But religious morality lacks rational basis and has roots in tremendous human suffering. Different religions contradict each other, and religious texts endorse practices (genocide, slavery, subjugation of women) that no reasonable person would accept today.

Emotional intuition suggests we should follow what "feels right." But intuition can feel right for practices that are clearly immoral. Slavery felt right to slaveholders. Intuition is unreliable precisely because it reflects our evolutionary heritage and cultural conditioning rather than careful reasoning.

Rational Morality, by contrast, grounds ethical judgments in reason. We identify the relevant facts, consider the consequences for conscious beings capable of suffering and flourishing, and reach conclusions through logical analysis rather than appeals to tradition, authority, or gut feeling.

Applying Reason to Cloning

Applied to human cloning: a cloned human would be identical in moral status to a biologically-conceived human. They would possess consciousness, subjective experience, and intrinsic worth. Killing them for organs would be rationally immoral for the same reasons killing any conscious person would be immoral.

This conclusion is internally consistent. The moral consideration follows from consciousness and awareness, not from the method of creation. A clone is not a soulless copy; they are a new conscious being deserving full moral consideration.

The path forward requires abandoning irrational objections while maintaining genuine ethical constraints. Rational morality gives us the tools to navigate this terrain.