The Ethical Debate of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Stem cell research is often at the forefront of heated ethical debates due to its assessment of human life. If stem cell research cannot be ethically defended, then it should not be conducted. “You cannot defend a study ethically unless the presumed cost is lower than expected benefits. The cost-benefit analysis of scientific research needs to include human/animal discomfort/risks, environmental issues, material costs, etc” which is necessary to support the positive outcome which the research claims to provide (experiment-resources, 2008).
The two opposing ethical arguments which have to be defended morally are that of utilitarianism and deontology. “Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines the moral value of an act in terms of its results, and if those results produce the greatest good for the greatest number. As a consequentialist theory, it is contrasted with nonconsequentialist theories, such as deontology” (Mosser, 2011). The Utilitarian argument of stem cell research is that, although the most valuable research has been derived from aborted human fetuses, stem cell research can cure multiple diseases and greatly advance science and medicine, so this is what should be done. “Deontology is the study of moral obligation and necessity, finding the source of ethical correctness in the rules according to which one acts. It rejects utilizing the results or consequences of an act to evaluate an act as moral and thus is a non-consequentialist theory. It is standardly contrasted with the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism” (Mosser, 2011). Skeptics with a deontological view would counter-argue saying that it is unethical to destroy human life to save human life, so this should not be done. Both of these arguments are complex and need to be evaluated to conclude which has the higher benefit.
Scientists and others who share a utilitarian stance support stem cell research by claiming the ethical cost is low compared to a high benefit. The benefits of
The two opposing ethical arguments which have to be defended morally are that of utilitarianism and deontology. “Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines the moral value of an act in terms of its results, and if those results produce the greatest good for the greatest number. As a consequentialist theory, it is contrasted with nonconsequentialist theories, such as deontology” (Mosser, 2011). The Utilitarian argument of stem cell research is that, although the most valuable research has been derived from aborted human fetuses, stem cell research can cure multiple diseases and greatly advance science and medicine, so this is what should be done. “Deontology is the study of moral obligation and necessity, finding the source of ethical correctness in the rules according to which one acts. It rejects utilizing the results or consequences of an act to evaluate an act as moral and thus is a non-consequentialist theory. It is standardly contrasted with the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism” (Mosser, 2011). Skeptics with a deontological view would counter-argue saying that it is unethical to destroy human life to save human life, so this should not be done. Both of these arguments are complex and need to be evaluated to conclude which has the higher benefit.
Scientists and others who share a utilitarian stance support stem cell research by claiming the ethical cost is low compared to a high benefit. The benefits of