SwedishPersian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Hi, my group is doing a ToK Presentation on clining and whether restictions should be placed on it or not. and im talking in favor of cloning (not necessarily humans, but organs etc) and I have writtin this so far: "What possible reasons do we have to forbid such a great advancement to modern science? Science has so far only brought prosperity to the human race. Look at life before the industrial revolution: people lived on farms with a low standard of living. Power was supplied by humans and animals and low quality hand-crafted goods were made at home. Today the average standards of living have gone up and we have had several ground breaking discoveries such as the World Wide Web, Electricity and important medical advancements such as the invention of Insulin." "Cloning is merely the next step in humanity’s journey towards complete comprehensions of his surroundings. Think of all the possibilities! Infertile couples will be able to have children with the help of cloning embryos. Cloned stem cells can provide endless possibilities for treatment of diseases. We can even clone organs, never having to worry about lack of organs and kidneys. And of course think of the evolvements of humans themselves. Through genetic engineering parents can choose the characteristics of their children. We world will have many more Albert Einsteins, Michael Jordans and, Marylyn Monroes." "Talking from my utilitarian position, I would have to say that even though there will be problems faced with cloning, the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages and that laws will be placed so severely punish anyone who clones another human being." So first of all im wondering whether a scientist would be a utalitarian since he/she would want the "most happiness" for the human race. Then im also concerned about the lack of "ToK material" in what im saying. I am still going to go on to argue about how human clones should be treated if they were to be created. So please guys, help me find some more ToK to bring up! THANKS Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greaterthaninfinity Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 I just wanted to say that the style you wrote your presentation in is not great, imo. A lot of it is appeal to emotion, and I think you need to cut that stuff out. Things like: "What possible reasons do we have to forbid such a great advancement to modern science? Science has so far only brought prosperity to the human race." "Cloning is merely the next step in humanity’s journey towards complete comprehensions of his surroundings." I don't think a scientist is necessarily utilitarianist. Scientists go into science for different reasons. Some practices of science DO not contribute to the welfare of everyone. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwedishPersian Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 [quote name='greaterthaninfinity' post='41327' date='Mar 21 2009, 05:24 PM']I just wanted to say that the style you wrote your presentation in is not great, imo. A lot of it is appeal to emotion, and I think you need to cut that stuff out. Things like: "What possible reasons do we have to forbid such a great advancement to modern science? Science has so far only brought prosperity to the human race." "Cloning is merely the next step in humanity’s journey towards complete comprehensions of his surroundings." I don't think a scientist is necessarily utilitarianist. Scientists go into science for different reasons. Some practices of science DO not contribute to the welfare of everyone.[/quote] Yes the part where I say "Science has so far only brought prosperity to the human race" is so that the other members of my group can identify the fallacy and bring it up as a counter argument. Is that good to do that or should I just write and avoid fallacies? Also, how would you recommend I change my style? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greaterthaninfinity Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Just cut out the appeal to emotion stuff. Stick to stating your points and providing supporting details. You want to present your points in an objective manner, and saying all that stuff really doesn't help. I don't think there are any other things you need to change. So yes, cut out the "Science has so far only brought prosperity to the human race" and the rhetorical question. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwedishPersian Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 okay but as for the ToK point. what more should i talk about when it comes to the areas of knowledge and the ways of knowing? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
greaterthaninfinity Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 AoK - biology; specifically genetics? You seem to be arguing for cloning... but take into consideration that whoever is countering your points might bring up the fact that cloned organs tend to not function as well. It's still in the experimental stages and there are so many kinks to work out. WoK - emotion and perception? Most of the world is against cloning because of their personal views. Those who are religious generally are against it, for the sole reason that they oppose the idea of "us playing God". I honestly don't have much to say on cloning. Here are some sites that came up when I Googled it though: [url="http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web1/tamang.html"]http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/...eb1/tamang.html[/url], [url="http://www.princeton.edu/~bioethic/conferences/99/precepts/cloning.html"]http://www.princeton.edu/~bioethic/confere...ts/cloning.html[/url], and [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9830/articulo3.htm"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9830/articulo3.htm[/url]. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwedishPersian Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 [quote name='greaterthaninfinity' post='41361' date='Mar 21 2009, 10:26 PM']AoK - biology; specifically genetics? You seem to be arguing for cloning... but take into consideration that whoever is countering your points might bring up the fact that cloned organs tend to not function as well. It's still in the experimental stages and there are so many kinks to work out. WoK - emotion and perception? Most of the world is against cloning because of their personal views. Those who are religious generally are against it, for the sole reason that they oppose the idea of "us playing God". I honestly don't have much to say on cloning. Here are some sites that came up when I Googled it though: [url="http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web1/tamang.html"]http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/...eb1/tamang.html[/url], [url="http://www.princeton.edu/~bioethic/conferences/99/precepts/cloning.html"]http://www.princeton.edu/~bioethic/confere...ts/cloning.html[/url], and [url="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9830/articulo3.htm"]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9830/articulo3.htm[/url].[/quote] Alright thanks! For AoK, other members of our group are bringing up ethics wen it comes to human cloning. and also emotion since our starting point is an article about a couple who payed to clone their dog. So one person is acting as the wife and she justifies her cloning emotionally since her former dog died. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.