Post Reply Main Forum
First, please note that there is a different between a good (sound, logical) argument and an effective argument. The art of creating effective arguments that are nonetheless unsound is known as “rhetoric.”
(Note: Go back to ancient times, and this is the distinction between Socrates and his opponents known as Sophists. Though Socrates was the better logician, the Sophists managed to convince (through rhetoric) the voting population of Athens to have Socrates executed.)
Be that as it may, there are several effective arguments against cloning — unsound, but nontheless useful in creating a change of opinion.
Perhaps the most effective is the “defective child” argument. Everybody has an emotional heartstring to pull concerning defective children. Nobody wants to see a child suffer. Therefore, draw a picture of a huge collection of deformed children (or the corpses of same) and make that your picture of cloning. If it would help, rent the movie “Aliens IV” and you will see within that movie a scene which you will recognize as the type of image that you need to create in the mind of your audience — a collection of malformed corpses and even one or two live specimens too badly deformed to do anything but suffer.
(Note: The counter to this is to recognize that natural reproduction also produces these specimens — babies born with defects as severe as missing limbs, exposed spinal cords, and missing significant portions of their brain. But it is unlikely that your opponents will think of these objections.)
In my experience, the second most persuasive argument concerns “playing God” — the idea that there are some things that humans should not tamper with. The creation of (human) life (through methods other than natural reproduction) is considered by many to be one of these. Here, the argument is that “it is just wrong.” Do not try to create any type of defense for this wrongness — it is a “prima facie” wrong — wrong on its face.
In fact, “prima facie” wrong is an appeal to prejudice. A racist, who has a negative emotional reaction to the thought of a black and white couple, will see interracial dating as a “prima facie” wrong. That is, the mere thought of such a union is enough to cause them nausea and a feeling of disgust. They take this feeling as evidence, not of a personal prejudice, but of an intrinsic “wrongness” inherent in such a coupling.
Years of bad (in the sense of scientifically unsound) science fiction (e.g., BRAVE NEW WORLD) has created just such a prejudice in a large portion of the population. Because people are disinclined to think that the fault lies in themselves, and are eager to be convinced that the fault is “out there” (in this case, in the act of cloning itself), it should take very little effort to convince your audience that this revulsion is caused, not by a learned prejudice, but by a perception of the “prima facie” wrongness of cloning.
Play these types of arguments for all they are worth, and you will learn how to be a good sophist. (But beware; as with Socrates and their opponents, a sophist who does not know when the game ends can do real damage to others by their actions.)
| Edit | Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Return to this forum’s home page!