Leon Kass
Leon Kass – The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans
“Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder…”(163)
pg. 163b opening concerns
He starts out by arguing that exposure and the media has softened us to the idea of cloning. Not only cloning but sexuality and perversion in general have become blurred terms in contemporary society. Words like, “procreation, nascent life, family, and the meaning of motherhood, fatherhood and the links between generations..” have all lost or changed meaning. This is all a thinly veiled attack on current culture, pg. 161A
We no longer see ourselves as products of our ancestors and of our culture, but we now view ourselves as self made. We custom design our lives, beliefs, ambitions, and priorities as we see fit. Self cloning therefore is just an extension of our ‘narcissistic self-re-creation.’ In our culture as long as something is done ‘freely’ it is moral.
“Enchanted and enslaved by the glamour of technology, we have lost our awe and wonder before the deep mysteries of nature and of life. We cheerfully take our own beginnings in our hands and, like the last man, we blink…”(161)
This is serious business:
“This is not business as usual, to be fretted about for a while but finally to be given our seal of approval. We must rise to the occasion and make our judgments as if the future of our humanity hangs in the balance. For so it does.”(161)
The ‘yuck’ factor:
Kass notes that most people, including those who cloned ‘Dolly the sheep’ say that there is something offensive, grotesque, repugnant and just plain disgusting about the concept of cloning a human. Kass thinks that this feeling should not be ignored when we determine the morality of cloning. Repugnance he claims is the “emotional expression of deep wisdom.”(162) read examples from P. 162
Kass then draws comparisons to other things which we feel the yuck factor with: incest, murder, rape. In all of these situations it is not required to give a rational argument why they are wrong for them to be morally suspect. It does not fully elaborate on the emotional disgust of inbreeding to say that we are afraid of the genetic results. Similarly, an argument against cloning (which has many examples of negative consequences) should not need to provide a rational justification if so many people are revolted by it.
Kass turns away from the repugnance argument for a moment and talks about the importance of sex and reproduction. He notes that through out the mammalian line the natural act of reproduction involves a male and a female of opposite sex. (hello Aquinas)
“Asexual reproduction, which produces ‘single-parent’ offspring, is a radical departure from the natural human way, confounding all normal understandings of father, mother, sibling, grandparent, etc., and all moral relations tied thereto.”(163)
His concerns:
Cloning is perverse –
The idea of selecting which genes to put into a person turns humanity into a manufactured good. “But we…would be taking a major step into making man himself simply another one of the man-made things. Human nature becomes merely the last part of nature to succumb to the technological project, which turns all of nature into raw material at human disposal, to be homogenized by our rationalized technique according to the subjective prejudices of the day.”(165)
“Cloning is inherently despotic, for it seeks to make one’s children (or someone else’s children after one’s own image (or an image of one’s choosing) and their future according to one’s will.”(166)
He makes a damning critique of Robertson on page 166
Conclusion p. 167
“Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder…”(163)
pg. 163b opening concerns
He starts out by arguing that exposure and the media has softened us to the idea of cloning. Not only cloning but sexuality and perversion in general have become blurred terms in contemporary society. Words like, “procreation, nascent life, family, and the meaning of motherhood, fatherhood and the links between generations..” have all lost or changed meaning. This is all a thinly veiled attack on current culture, pg. 161A
We no longer see ourselves as products of our ancestors and of our culture, but we now view ourselves as self made. We custom design our lives, beliefs, ambitions, and priorities as we see fit. Self cloning therefore is just an extension of our ‘narcissistic self-re-creation.’ In our culture as long as something is done ‘freely’ it is moral.
“Enchanted and enslaved by the glamour of technology, we have lost our awe and wonder before the deep mysteries of nature and of life. We cheerfully take our own beginnings in our hands and, like the last man, we blink…”(161)
This is serious business:
“This is not business as usual, to be fretted about for a while but finally to be given our seal of approval. We must rise to the occasion and make our judgments as if the future of our humanity hangs in the balance. For so it does.”(161)
The ‘yuck’ factor:
Kass notes that most people, including those who cloned ‘Dolly the sheep’ say that there is something offensive, grotesque, repugnant and just plain disgusting about the concept of cloning a human. Kass thinks that this feeling should not be ignored when we determine the morality of cloning. Repugnance he claims is the “emotional expression of deep wisdom.”(162) read examples from P. 162
Kass then draws comparisons to other things which we feel the yuck factor with: incest, murder, rape. In all of these situations it is not required to give a rational argument why they are wrong for them to be morally suspect. It does not fully elaborate on the emotional disgust of inbreeding to say that we are afraid of the genetic results. Similarly, an argument against cloning (which has many examples of negative consequences) should not need to provide a rational justification if so many people are revolted by it.
Kass turns away from the repugnance argument for a moment and talks about the importance of sex and reproduction. He notes that through out the mammalian line the natural act of reproduction involves a male and a female of opposite sex. (hello Aquinas)
“Asexual reproduction, which produces ‘single-parent’ offspring, is a radical departure from the natural human way, confounding all normal understandings of father, mother, sibling, grandparent, etc., and all moral relations tied thereto.”(163)
His concerns:
Cloning is perverse –
The idea of selecting which genes to put into a person turns humanity into a manufactured good. “But we…would be taking a major step into making man himself simply another one of the man-made things. Human nature becomes merely the last part of nature to succumb to the technological project, which turns all of nature into raw material at human disposal, to be homogenized by our rationalized technique according to the subjective prejudices of the day.”(165)
“Cloning is inherently despotic, for it seeks to make one’s children (or someone else’s children after one’s own image (or an image of one’s choosing) and their future according to one’s will.”(166)
He makes a damning critique of Robertson on page 166
Conclusion p. 167
posted by Charles Carlson at
10:03 AM
