Blog 4- How did the first contemporary issue effect your principles? Did it challenge them? Were your principles helpful in working out your response to the issue? Which philosopher's position was most consistent with your own principles and why?


The first contemporary issue of human cloning contrased slightly with my own personal principles, and mirrored slightly what I talked about in Blog 3.  In my own personal principles blog, I spoke about living your life to the fullest because we're all going to die.  And that meant that your time here on earth needed to be spent wisely.  The issue of human cloning completely shatters that idea because if you die, you can just be brought to life again.  Human cloning takes away the "zest" that life has to offer.


John Locke spoke about individual rights and equality for all.  Since I most admire Locke's way of thinking, I believe that human cloning takes away from his ideals.  Many people won't have access to money for this "cloning" and that wouldn't be equal for everyone.  We could clone a million rich people and have a world full of arrogant dictators, and then we'd be screwed.  That is not me being stereotypical, just saying if the worst were to happen.  


I favor Kass' way of thinking rather than Tooley's.  I am completely against human cloning, and so is Kass.  He speaks of it as repugnant, and I honestly think that that is what it is.  It takes away the true meaning of life, and makes it unimportant.  I'm all for second chances, but I think in life, you should only get one chance to make of it what you can.   

I commented on Denzel's blog http://bunchoblogs.blogspot.com/.