UNIT #4
RATIONALE FOR THE PAIRINGS OF ESSAYS
The class theme of cloning can be approached from a variety of disciplinary
perspectives. It is a very complex and controversial issue. Also, because cloning has in no
way been perfected, it is also highly speculative. This means that, although many people
are incredibly opinionated about this topic, there is absolutely no way for any point of
view to prove itself. This makes it a fine subject for interdisciplinary exploration and a
good field for working on the process of integration. For this course, we’ve divided the
process of integration into four steps, and chosen four pairs of essays from our text,
Cloning, that more or less illustrate those steps.
The first step is the integration of two perspectives from the same discipline
which agree with each other. In this case, the essay by Wilmut, “Cloning Can Help
Humans and Animals” and the essay by Dawkins, “There is Nothing Inherently Wrong
with Human Cloning”, have been paired. Both essays are by biologists, and both agree
that cloning is not a bad thing. Integrating these two points of view should be fairly
simple. However, the two essays do examine different aspects of the cloning debate.
The second step is the integration of two perspectives from the same discipline
which take opposing views. The Wilmut essay is this time pitted against the essay by
Lester, “Arguments Favoring Human Cloning Are Wrong”. In this case, we have two
teams of scientists taking opposite positions. Therefore, their differences shouldn’t be
about methods, but about how those methods are applied. Integrating these two positions
will be somewhat more difficult, but keep in mind that integration is not about choosing
sides. It is about looking at all sides of an issue more thoroughly.
The third step is the integration of two perspectives from similar disciplines that
take opposing views. Wheeler’s essay, “Human Cloning Will Distort Parenthood”, is
paired with McGee’s essay, “Human Cloning May Fit into Our Changing World”. This
pairing places the viewpoint of Christian Ethics against Bioethics, two similar disciplines
which are both committed to helping people make moral judgments in difficult situations.
Nonetheless, these two points of view are almost completely in opposition to each other
on this issue. Again, integration requires seeing how both sides fit into a larger whole.
The fourth step is the integration of two perspectives from dissimilar disciplines
that take opposing views. Kass’s essay, “Human Cloning is Dehumanizing”, which takes
a dim view of cloning from the point of view of philosophy, is juxtaposed with Dawkins’
essay from the viewpoint of biology. Integrating these two should prove challenging, but
be aware that as long as you are no trying to find a right answer or a correct viewpoint, it
is possible to integrate any number of perspectives together.
The last pair of essays consist of two opposing disciplines, Religion and
Philosophy, which take two opposite points of view. Post’s essay, “The Judeo-Christian
Argument Against Cloning”, versus Pense’s essay, “Religion Should Not Influence
Public Policy on Cloning”. In this case, not only are the two points of view opposed, but
the disciplines themselves assert that the other discipline has no claim to truth. This
should create some interesting integrative challenges.