In the essay "Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation" by John A. Robertson, is his argument sound and valid? Why or why not?

John A. Robertson's argument in "Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation" is not sound or valid, because it relies on the naturalistic fallacy and dismisses the potential of human cloning to cause harm.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In "Human Cloning and the Challenge of Regulation," John A. Robertson argues that widespread fears about human cloning are unreasonable and exaggerated. In his view, there is nothing immoral about cloning, which merely reproduces a process that frequently occurs in nature—for instance, in the case of monozygotic twins, which are genetic duplicates. Societies should accept that human cloning has plenty of legitimate uses and should not try to limit cloning, except to ensure that it is performed to a high standard.

Robertson makes some sound points, but his overall argument is not sound and valid. In the first place, the fact that a process has legitimate uses clearly does not mean that it has no illegitimate uses, and Robertson dismisses these uses with the simple assertion that they are not very likely to occur. This, however, is no reason to shy away from regulating them.

Robertson also relies on the naturalistic fallacy, the idea that something should not be criticized or avoided because it happens in nature. This is clearly false. A whole range of diseases occur in nature, but people would rightly object to the the work of a scientist who attempted to create these diseases artificially and infect people with them.

Last Updated by eNotes Editorial on
Soaring plane image

We’ll help your grades soar

Start your 48-hour free trial and unlock all the summaries, Q&A, and analyses you need to get better grades now.

  • 30,000+ book summaries
  • 20% study tools discount
  • Ad-free content
  • PDF downloads
  • 300,000+ answers
  • 5-star customer support
Start your 48-Hour Free Trial