LECTURE NOTES FOR EREL 211

INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS AND EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES

Saturday, 05 November 2022

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 1 of 54
MEANING OF ETHICS
Ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos and is the same with “moral” because the
Latin word mores, from which moral is derived represents the Greek word ethos.
They both imply “customs, habits or ways of life”. Ethics refers to the study of morals
and relates to moral principles, values, and rules of conduct governing the individual
or a community, whereas moral concerns the distinction between good and bad, fair
and unfair, praiseworthy and blameworthy or right and wrong.

To this end, the terms “ethical” and “moral” are used interchangeably in this course
material. The meaning of ethics can be comprehended after its definition is clearly
stated. Lillie defines ethics as “the normative science of the conduct of human beings
living in societies”. Lacey sees ethics as “an inquiry into how men ought to act in
general, not as a means to a given end but as an end in itself”. According to
Omoregbe, ethics can be defined as “the branch of philosophy which deals with the
morality of human actions; or as the branch of philosophy which studies the norm of
human behaviour” . In corroboration of this view, Ozumba defines ethics as “a theory
of morality which deals with principles of good conduct; it deals with judgement as to
the rightness or wrongness, desirability or undesirability, approval or disapproval of
our actions”. All these definitions of ethics above connote that ethics concerns itself
with the morality of human conduct; human conduct and actions form the core and
subject matter of ethics or moral philosophy. Ethics deals with the way things ought to
be, the way human beings ought to behave and what humans ought to do. It helps
people to decide what is right, praiseworthy and good or wrong, blameworthy and bad
in any given situation.

Put differently, ethics is basically the study of standards for determining what
behaviour or conduct is right and wrong, praiseworthy and blameworthy or good and
bad. You may want to ask: is it only ethics that is concerned with human behaviour
and actions in the society? Ethics is not the only discipline concerned with human

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 2 of 54
behaviour and actions. Social sciences like sociology, psychology and anthropology,
are also interested in human actions and conduct. Their interest and perspective of
ethics are different from that of philosophical ethics. These social sciences tell you
how human beings act and why human beings act as they do in the society without
actually making a value judgement. Philosophical ethics, on the other hand, is
interested not with the description and explanation but with the evaluation of human
conduct (Randall and Buchler 257). This indicates that philosophical ethics is both
evaluative and prescriptive in nature. Philosophical ethics prescribes whether an
action is right or wrong, whether certain conduct is justifiable or not. It deals with the
way things ought to be, the way human beings ought to behave and what human
beings ought to do. Its major interests include the nature of ultimate value and the
standards by which human actions and conduct can be judged right or wrong. Hence,
the study of ethics begins with the study of human action. Without an anchor in
human action, ethics loses its meaning and its value to decision-makers.

Branches of Philosophical Ethics

There are three broad branches of ethics:
a) Meta-ethics: this branch of ethics is concerned with the analysis or clarification
and meaning of ethical terms, such as ‘good’, ‘duty’, obligation’, ‘right’, ‘moral’,
‘immoral’ and so on. Metaethics also questions how ethical knowledge is acquired.
For instance, “how can one differentiate what is good from what is bad?” In other
words, it studies the nature and methodology of moral judgement and moral language,
how we use moral language and ask questions about the meaning of moral
statements. Some of the questions asked here are: what is the nature and methodology
of moral judgement? What does ‘good’ and ‘ought’ mean? What does it mean for an
action to be right? How can a moral principle be justified?

b) Normative ethics: this branch of ethics is concerned with norms, standards or

principles by which human actions are to be good or bad, praiseworthy or
blameworthy, right or wrong. The word ‘normative’ denotes norms, or standards, of
judgement. It studies principles about how human beings ought to live and seeks

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 3 of 54
norms about what is right or wrong, virtuous, or just. It asks questions like what
principle ought we to live by? What are the bases principles of right and wrong
actions? What are our fundamental moral duties? What makes the right actions, right?
Which character traits count as virtues or vices, and why? Some normative ethical
theories include consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics. These ethical theories
shall be discussed in subsequent units.

c) Applied ethics: this branch of ethics is the problem-solving part of ethics.

Philosophers here must make use of the insights derived from meta-ethics and
normative ethics in addressing specific ethical issues and cases. Hence, applied ethics
is the application of ethical theory and principles to particular moral dilemmas, issues
or cases. In other words, applied ethics is the significant relationship between theory
and practice and the authentic acid test of ethical decision making; it applies ethical
theory and principles to the real-world state of affairs. Professional ethics belongs to
this branch of ethics.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING
Arnold, D., Beauchamp, T. & Norman, B. (2014). Ethical Theory and Business.
Edinburgh: Pearson,
Gibson, K. (2014). An Introduction to Ethics. Boston: Pearson.
Omoregbe, J. (1998). Ethics A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: Joja
Publishers.
Rossouw, D. (1994). Business Ethics. Pretoria: Southern Book Publishers.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2019). Living Ethics: An Introduction with Readings. New York:
Oxford University Press,

EMERGING ETHICAL ISSUES

PUNISHMENT

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 4 of 54
The concept of punishment is an ethical concept that has received scholarly attention
from different discipline. The moral mien attached to it makes it a subject of
philosophical discourse, especially in moral philosophy. Hence, punishment is defined
as “a deprivation, taking away from offenders what they value – their freedom, or
some of their money when they are fined” (C. L. Ten, 1991:366). Thus, punishment in
a simple language is conceived as the consequence for one’s action. The consequence
most often is in form of harm inflicted on the offender(s). In this vein, punishment
suggests an infliction of harm by the rightful authority or the executive power of the
state on a person who is judged to have violated a rule or a law. However, for a
punishment to be punishment in the real sense of it, five principal elements are
identified to be in place by philosophers. J. Olen & V. Barry (1991:254-255) outlined
the elements to include (1) involve pain, (2) be administered for an offense against a
law or rule, (3) be administered to someone who has been judged guilty of an offense,
(4) be imposed by someone other than the offender, and (5) be imposed by rightful
authority. Punishment must involve pain, harm or some other consequence normally
considered unpleasant. For example, a convicted robber was sentenced to “five-to-
twenty” in a Beverly Hill country club; this would not be considered punishment,
since ordinarily it would not involve pain or other unpleasant consequences (unless
the robber had to pick up the tab.) If he were sentenced to have his hands cut off, this
could constitute punishment, though draconian by many people’s standard. The
Punishment must be administered for an offense against a law or rule. While
punishment involves pain, obviously not all pain involves punishment.

If a robber breaks into your house and steals your stereo, he is not “punishing” you,
even though his action satisfies element (1). Although it caused you pain, his action is
not taken to punish an offense against a law or rule. However, should the robber
subsequently be sent to prison for the crime, then that action would be administered
for breaking a law and thus satisfy element (2). The punishment must be administered
to someone who has been judged guilty of an offense. Suppose the robber is
apprehended and imprisoned, although never judged guilty of the robbery. This would
not be considered punishment. However, if he is imprisoned after his conviction for
stealing your stereo, then he is being punished. The punishment must be imposed
O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 5 of 54
someone other than the offender. It is true that people sometimes speak of “punishing
themselves” for transgression. This, however, is not punishment in the strict sense, but
a self-imposed act of atonement. Suffering from a twinge of conscience as he listens
to the latest Willie Nelson album onyour stereo, the robber decides to “punish”
himself by listening to Robert Goulet, whom he detests, for two hours each day for a
year. Properly speaking, this would not be punishment, although it might qualify as
masochism (the enjoyment of receiving pain).

The punishment must be imposed by rightful authority. In a strictly legal sense,

“rightful authority” would be that constituted by a legal system against which offense
is committed. In the case of the robber, “rightful authority” likely would be a court
judge and jury. In a less legal sense, the authority might be a parent, a teacher, or
some official who has a right to harm a person in a particular way for having done
something or failed to do something. It is, however, important to mention that the
sense of punishment which is of moral concern is not the sense which speaks of the
punishment of children, animal, maniacs, imbeciles and other categories of person
who are not morally responsible for their actions since their condition presupposes
that they are rationally

Methods of Punishment

The history of mankind is replete with various methods of punishing offenders of

rules and laws. For instance, The Judeo- Christian Bible in the book of Genesis tells
us of Adam and Eve, who were banished from the Garden of Eden. This is a form
ostracization which is viable in various cultures in the form of banishment,
excommunication and extradition. These forms of punishment consist in expelling
offenders from the society to text their conduct and behaviour elsewhere. Aside this,
methods of punishment are well articulated in religious setting, traditional setting and
of course in modern time. J. A. Aigbodioh (2004:47-48) enunciates some of the
methods punishment o includes:

- Punishment could take the form of severing or cutting off some parts of one’s body.
For example the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye, the Sharia law etc.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 6 of 54
- Punishment in the traditional Africa cultures was often meted to the offender by
fining (in terms of food items), by being made to do compulsory labour or by being
asked to live temporarily in isolation without talking to others, participating in public
functions, visiting others among others.

Adulterous women were made and are still being made, in some traditional culture, to
perform certain rituals publicly and to suffer public disgrace. - Modern methods of
punishment are more retained and applied with greater justification than those of the
ancients. They take the form of imprisonment, death by hanging, electrocution or
firing squad and fines.

Moral Question about Punishment

Punishment as one of the perennial concepts that moralists tangle with is polemical
and thus associated with some moral questions. These questions are not raise to vilify
offenders from facing the consequences or being made to be responsible for their
actions, but to provide a tenable justification for any form of punishment mete to (an)
offender(s). Some of the moral questions associated to punishment are well articulated
by scholars like, Charles Reid (1981), J. A. Aigbodioh (2004), James Rachels (1971),
Ernest Nagel (1973), and Robert Baum (1976) to include but not limited to:

- What is the justification of applying punishment to offenders of the law?

- What is the moral basis of punishment?

- If at all we are justified in punishing convicted offenders, should there not be limits
to the extents of doing so?

- Given the principle of proportionality that an offence should be punished only in

direct proportion to its seriousness, how do we determine the appropriate measure of
punishment for a particular offender? These questions are what ethical theories of
punishment generally seek to answer. This we shall discuss in unit 3 of this module.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 7 of 54
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. What do you understand by the concept, “punishment?”

2. Outline and discuss the elements that must be involved before any form of
punishment is justified

CONCLUSION

We have considered the meaning and nature of punishment. This was done with a
critical reflection on what makes punishment to be punishment in the real sense of it.
Here five elements were identified as ingredients that must be in vogue before
punishment could be justified. This is followed with methods of punishment as
envisaged from religious, traditional and modern perspectives and the moral questions
associated with the concept of punishment from philosophical perspective were also
examined.

SUMMARY

Punishment is conceived as a reward for wrong doing which must involve pains that is
administered by rightful authority. It is not the same as self-imposed discipline which
is an offshoot of atonement. The methods of punishment were also examined as
envisaged from religious, traditional and modern perspectives. The moral questions

associated with the concept of punishment from philosophical perspective were also
examined.

ASSIGNMENT

Why do you think some individuals are exempted from punishment? Explain your
view.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 8 of 54
REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Aigbodioh, J. A. (2004). Practical Issues in Applied ethics: The Facts, Arguments and
Options, Ekpoma: Inno Printing Press.

Baum, R. (ed.). (1976). Ethical Arguments for Analysis, 2nd Ed. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Gardiner, G. A. (1956). Capital Punishment as a Deterrent and the Alternative,

London.

Nagel, E. (1973). “The Enforcement of Morals,” in Paul Kurtz (ed.), Moral Problems
in Contemporary Society: Essays in Humanistic Ethics, Buffalo, N. Y: Prometheus
Books.

Oke, M. (2008). “An Indigenous Yoruba (African) Philosophical Argument against

Capital Punishment,” in Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy/Revue Africaine de
Philosophie, xxii: 25-36.

Olen, J. & Barry, V. (1991). Applying Ethics: A Test with Readings, 4th Ed.
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Omoregbe, J. (1998) Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Joja

Publishers.

Owoade, M. A. (1988). “Capital Punishment: Philosophical Issues and contemporary

Problems in Nigeria,” in Second Order (New Series): An African Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. no. I: 41-61.

Rachels, J. (ed.). (1971). Moral Problems: A Collection of Philosophical Essays, New

York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Reid, C. L. (1981). Choice and Action: An Introduction to Ethics, New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Ten, C. L. (1991). “Crime and Punishment,” in Peter
Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 9 of 54
MEANING AND NATURE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

INTRODUCTION

It is important to mention that there are major two types of punishment namely
corporal and capital punishment. Our concern here is the capital punishment.
Therefore, the meaning and nature of capital punishment will be examined hereunder.

What is Capital Punishment?

The issue of capital punishment is very old and not alien to any human society. In
ancient Greece (399BCE), Socrates, according to the records, was sentenced to death
for his alleged crimes against the Athenian City – State. We are told, in England, that
capital punishment existed for over two hundred offences in the last century
(Gardiner, 1956:24). The offences in which capital punishment is associated with in
England range from defacing Westminster Bridge and consorting with gypsies, to
several categories of murder (see M. A. Owoade, 1988:41). In Kenya, as in several
other African countries, the death penalty is the usual punishment for a number of
offences ranging from arson, treason, and armed robbery to murder (M. Oke, 2008:2).

Capital punishment is an advanced form of punishment. It is often wrapped in death

penalty or the taking of a person life for a crime committed. Capital punishment has
held attention through the seventies, even overshadowing debates about the rights of
prisoners, prisoner riots, and county jails that were flaming death traps (C. L. Reid,
1981:239). As a result of the involvement of life and given the sacred nature of life,
several questions are raised concerning the morality or otherwise of capital
punishment. In philosophical, political and judicial circles, the debate on capital
punishment continues to be lively between those who support and those who oppose
the use of capital punishment. In some places, the death penalty has been abolished in
deference to the pressure and force of the abolitionists’ arguments. This is well
captured by Owoade (1988:42) who argues that the debate over capital punishment,
from the perspective of Western jurisprudence, moves in three directions. These are;
first, the moral-humanitarian religious directions; secondly, the popular direction i.e.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 10 of 54
the views,prejudices and superstitions of the man in the street, and lastly the scientific
directions, i.e. the psychiatric, and sociological views on the subject.

Methods of Punishment

Just as punishment, in its generic understanding, has various ways by which offenders
are rewarded for their wrong doing so it is with capital punishment. There are means
through which capital punishment is meted out. These include:

1. Death by hanging
2. Death by electrocution
3. Death by poisonous substances
4. Death by firing squad

Moral Question about Punishment

Capital punishment as one of the perennial concepts that moralists tangle with raises
the question of sanctity of human life. This question is built on the puzzle “does
capital punishment succeed in deterring potential murders? Don’t we think that
instead of deterring criminals from further crime of killing and other heinous crimes
that could attract death penalty, capital punishment seems to increase the chances of
people getting away with their crime, and so they may not in the least be deterred by
the threat of the death penalty?

SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

1. What do you understand by capital punishment?

2. Is there any difference between punishment and capital punishment? Explain
your view.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 11 of 54
CONCLUSION

We have considered the meaning and nature of capital punishment. It is arguable from
the moral question attached to capital punishment that more than often, capital
punishment may not necessarily deter criminals especially the hardened one who
could perceive it as a mean of escaping justice.

SUMMARY

Capital punishment is conceived as death penalty for crime committed. Some of the
means by which capital punishment are carried out include death by hanging, death by
firing squad, and death by electrocution among others. The sanctity of human life
remains the major moral questions associated with the concept of capital punishment.

ASSIGNMENT

Do you think sanctity of life is a clog in the wheel of capital punishment? Discuss
your position.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Gardiner, G. A. (1956). Capital Punishment as a Deterrent and the Alternative.

London.

Oke, M. (2008). “An Indigenous Yoruba (African) Philosophical Argument against

Capital Punishment,” in Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy/Revue Africaine de
Philosophie, xxii: 25-36.

Omoregbe, J. (1998) Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Joja

Publishers.

Owoade, M. A. (1988). “Capital Punishment: Philosophical Issues and contemporary

Problems in Nigeria,” in Second Order (New Series): An African Journal of
Philosophy, Vol. no. I: 41-61.

Reid, C. L. (1981). Choice and Action: An Introduction to Ethics, New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 12 of 54
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

INTRODUCTION

Here we will examine some major theories of punishment and show their relevance to
better our understanding of what punishment is. Thus, the unit exposes the content of
some of the theories used in justifying punishment. For instance, Westal Willoughby
(1900) categorizes these theories into the Retributive theory, that is, looking to the
past and the deed already done, seeking satisfaction, expiation, or vindication; and the
Utilitarian theory, looking to the future, to deterrence, to prevention of recidivism, and
to the good of the society, including that of the individual offender. From the above,
ethicists have developed four major theories in justification of punishment. These are
(1) Retributive, (2) Deterrent, (3) Preventive, and (4) Reformatory, respectively (W.
W.Willoughby, 1981:240). Each of these theories has their peculiarities and such will
be discussed one after the other in the next section.

Theories of Punishment

The theories of punishment are better explained with reference to the aims of
punishment. This is in two folds: (1) in terms of giving people what they deserve, or
(2) in terms of its desirable consequences. In the first category is the retributive theory
of punishment; while the second includes preventive, deterrent, and reformative
theories. This, we shall examine one after the other.

Retributive Theory

Retributive theory of punishment is a fundamental theory of punishment that delights

in looking into the past and the deed already done, seeking satisfaction, expiation, or
vindication (Reid, 1981:239). The term retribution refers to punishment given in
return for some wrong done (Olen & Barry, 1991:256). Retributive theory of
punishment is often explained with reference to Mosaic Law and Sharia Law. It is a
theory of punishment that suggests that “the offenders, because he has voluntarily
committed a wrong act, is deservedly punished so that he may suffer for the wrong he
has done whether or not the suffering produces any good consequences” (Aigbodioh,

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 13 of 54
2004:50). As a theory of punishment, retributive theory is one of the major strands on
which the argument for capital punishment is built.

Deterrence Theory

The deterrence theory of punishment holds that we should punish in order to

discourage others from committing similar offenses (Olen & Barry, 1991:256). This
theory functions from dual perspectives. One, it forbids the criminal from committing
such crime again and two, it serves as a warning to would-be offender(s)/criminal(s),
not to embark on such action that could bring such severe punishment on them.

Preventive Theory

This theory of punishment holds that we should punish to ensure that offenders do not
repeat their offence and by so doing further injure the society (Olen & Barry,
1991:257). The implication of this theory of punishment is that the offender(s) will be
prevented from committing another crime and the society at large will be protected
from an eventuality that the offender and/or criminal could plunged the society into if
allowed to continue living freely in the society.

Reformatory Theory

The reformatory theory of punishment is essentially to reform the criminals/offenders.

This theory stipulates that “one should punish in order to induce people to conform to
standards of behaviour they have tended to ignore or violate” (Olen & Barry,
1991:257). Punishment, within the precepts of this theory, is a corrective means by
which the offender may be reformed and made to be of good behaviour in the future.
The idea of reformative theory of punishment is to ensure that people emerge from
punishment better than they were before, insofar as they will be less likely to breach
conventional standards of behaviour. This is made practicable in some of the modern
penal institutions where provisions are made for the convicts to learn good acts
through the provision of various recreational, educational, and vocational services
provided for the inmates.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 14 of 54
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Outline and discuss with concrete examples, two theories of punishment.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the four major theories of punishment and show their essence in
the contemporary society.

SUMMARY

Four theories of punishment were considered. While retributive theory is seen as that
which is an equivalence of the Mosaic law and Sharia law, others are seen as having a
utilitarian values that are often dual in nature. This is particularly where both the
criminal/offender and the society are made better as a result of imposing punishment
on the offender.

ASSIGNMENT

Which of the theories of punishment do you consider more appropriate for a

murderer? Explain your choice.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Aigbodioh, J. A. (2004). Practical Issues in Applied ethics: The Facts, Arguments and
Options, Ekpoma: Inno Printing Press.

Omoregbe, J. (1998) Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Joja

Publishers.

Reid, C. L (1981). Choice and Action: An Introduction to Ethics, New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 15 of 54
Argument for Capital Punishment

The retentionists argument for the sustenance of capital punishment can be articulated
under the following (i) capital punishment deters crime (ii)capital punishment keeps
the convicted murderer from killing again (iii) capital punishment balances the scales
of justice (iv) society should not be made to pay the economic costs of life sentences
for murders. (i) Capital punishment deters crime – this argument as articulated
suggests that capital punishment is a more powerful deterrence against crime than
prison. The more severe the punishment, the greater the risk to the would-be criminal;
and the greater the risk to the would-be criminal, the more reason not to commit the
crime. Though this is not saying every would-be killer is rational enough to weigh the
pros and cons before deciding whether to kill, but it certainly stands to reason that
some are. As long as that is true, capital punishment serves its purpose – saving
innocent lives. (ii) Capital punishment keeps the convicted murderer from killing
again – In this regard, capital punishment is seen as that which guarantees at least one
thing. We do not have to worry that an executed murderer will kill again. Even if
every murderer sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole never
leaves prison alive, which is highly doubtful, we still have to worry about murders
committed in prison. The rest of the society may be protected from these killers, but
we should be conscious that the prison guards and fellow inmates are not. More so,
since they are already serving the maximum sentence there is nothing to fear from
killing again. (iii) Capital punishment balances the scales of justice – murder being the
ultimate crime, simple justice requires that the murderer pay the ultimate penalty.
After all, deterrence and prevention are not the only purposes of punishing criminals.
An equally important purpose is to see that justice is done and moral retribution is
taken.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 16 of 54
That is why we insist that the punishment must fit the crime. Furthermore, society has
both the right and the obligation to express its moral outrage over the most heinous
crimes committed against it. Both purposes are best served by capital punishment.
Prison is just too weak a punishment for many murderers, and a prison term cannot
satisfy society’s outrage over vicious murders. (iv) Society should not be made to pay
the economic costs of life sentences for murders – When you put murderers away for
life you give up all hope of reforming them. That leaves society with the heavy cost of
supporting the worst criminals in maximum security prisons until they die. Why
should innocent taxpayers foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals who have
demonstrated that they have no respect for societal laws and/or human life?

Argument against Capital Punishment

The abolitionist argument for the eradication of capital punishment can be articulated
under the following (i) every human life has dignity and worth (ii) capital punishment
is imposed with class and racial bias (iii) the innocent may die (iv) capital punishment
compromises the judicial system. (i) Every human life has dignity and worth – Capital
punishment is nothing more than legalized cold-blooded murder. Whatever crime a
man has committed, he is still a human being, and every human life has inherent
dignity and worth. This is not to say that one is advocating leniency toward vicious
murderers. We have to protect ourselves from them and we have to send a clear signal
to other would-be murderers that the society will not tolerate heinous crime. But life
imprisonment without possibility of parole is sufficient punishment and deterrence. To
strap a fellow human being into a chair and give him a lethal dose of gas, a lethal jolt
of electricity, or a lethal injection is unworthy of a civilized society. Capital
punishment should have gone the way of legalized torture and mutilation years ago. It,
too, is ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ and like them it is morally unacceptable in
today’s world (ii) Capital punishment is imposed with class and racial bias – statistics
show two very disturbing facts about the way capital punishment is imposed in our
society. First, the poor, the underprivileged, and members of minority groups are far
more likely to be executed than the rich and the influential. Second, in racists
countries, the death penalty is far more likely to be imposed when the victim is a

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 17 of 54
white man than when the victim is a member of the minority group. Regardless of
your high-minded principles, capital punishment shows at best a respect for affluent,
Whiteman life, not human life in general. Because its implementation is patently
discriminatory and therefore unjust, it must be stopped. (iii) The innocent may die –
the innocents are often convicted of crime. As tragic as that is when the sentence is a
prison term, the tragedy is far worse when the sentence is death. In the former case
society can at least make some reparation for the time unjustly served, but no fact is
more obvious than the fact that nothing can be done for the dead. To execute even one
innocent person is inexcusable, and there is no way in the world that we can rule that
possibility not without abolishing the death penalty. (iv)Capital punishment
compromises the judicial system – capital punishment compromises our judicial
system in two ways. First, though the point of capital punishment is to present a tough
stance against crime, it sometimes has the opposite effect. Juries have been known to
strain the evidence to convict defendants of lesser charges – or even to acquit them –
when a conviction of first degree murder carries a mandatory death sentence. Second,
cases of capital punishment invariably involve years of costly appeals. Not only does
that delay justice, but it also subjects the victims’ families, as well as the convicts, to
years of cruel and unusual punishment.

ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

Given your understanding of the retentionists and abolitionists argument, do you think
capital punishment should be retained?

CONCLUSION

We have considered four major arguments for and against capital punishment from the
two major camps that is, the retentionists and abolitionists’ camps.

SUMMARY

The unit examines the argument for and against capital punishment as advanced by
the retentionists and abolitionists. The argument therein seems to strike a balance such
that the idea of capital

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 18 of 54
punishment can and may still retain its essence if imposed by rightful authority for a
crime committed.

ASSIGNMENT

How viable is the claim that with capital punishment the innocent may die? Explain.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Aigbodioh, J. A. (2004). Practical Issues in Applied ethics: The Facts, Arguments and
Options, Ekpoma: Inno Printing Press.

Omoregbe, J. (1998) Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Joja

Publishers.

Reid, C. L (1981). Choice and Action: An Introduction to Ethics, New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

MEANING AND NATURE OF ABORTION

INTRODUCTION

We will now examine the meaning and nature of abortion. It among other things
unveils the methods and ways of carrying out abortion as well as the moral question
attached to abortion.

What is Abortion?

Abortion according to C. L. Reid (1981:362) was forcibly brought to the attention of

Americans during the period in which horribly deformed babies were being born to
women who had been given thalidomide drugs during pregnancy. It was illegal and
women who had taken the tranquilizer on a physician’s advice had to decide whether
to abort illegally, risk bearing an armless or legless child, or go abroad for a legal
abortion at a great expense. This seems to be one of the major incidents that brought
the issue of abortion in to limelight. However, the proper way to understand abortion
is to review its etymological conception. Abortion is derived from two Latin words, ab
and oriri which mean “off or away,” and “to be born,” respectively. Therefore,

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 19 of 54
abortion etymologically means “to be born off or away” (Aigbodioh, 2004:101).
Aside this, abortion generally is conceived as the untimely termination of pregnancy
before due delivery or what Olen & Barry (1991:163) refer to as “the termination of
pregnancy.” The implication of this suggests abortion as “the expulsion of a fetus
from the womb before it is viable, that is, before it can live outside the mother” (J. F.
Awajiusuk, 2012:36). While abortion to the Catholic Church is seen as “deliberate and
direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase
of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth” (see Aigbodioh,
2004:101). Abortion can happen for a number of reasons. These include spontaneous
abortion which could be as a result of biochemical factors or because of an injury to
the woman, pregnancy got as a result of rape, incest, unwanted pregnancy among
others.

Methods of Abortion

There are various methods and techniques by which abortion could be procured in
modern orthodox medicine. Some of the methods of abortion may be summed as
articulated in Aigbodioh (2004: 104 - 106 and W. T. Osemwegie, 2012: 23-24) in the
following manner.

1. The Dilatation and Curettage (D & C) Technique: The D & C is one of the oldest
techniques of bringing about abortion. D & C as itis often called is the use of a sharp
curette (loop-shaped knife) to cut the conceptus or baby into pieces and then
evacuated through the cervix of the woman. This method involves high possibilities of

infection.

2. Suction Abortion: This technique consists in the use of a suction apparatus. It is

also called uterine aspiration. This method is usually used before the twelfth week of
pregnancy. Here, the cervix of the mother is widened and a hollow tube with a suction
machine (aspirator) is placed or slide into the uterus to rip up the baby and then
suction off; i.e. empty the pieces into a vessel. This does not require the use of a sharp
curette and so it is an improvement on the D & C. however, there is still likelihood of
infection.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 20 of 54
3. Saline Abortion: This method is carried out after twelfth week of pregnancy. Here a
needle is inserted through the abdominal wall into the amniotic sac where the fetus is
planted. The needle contained a saline solution which the fetus swallows and causes it
to die within two hours of dehydration and hemorrhage. Within 24 hours the woman
goes into labour and delivers a dead fetus. This method may result in complications
and causes psychological problems for the woman.

4. Prostagladins Abortion: This method is similar to the saline abortion. Like the
saline abortion, it is performed in later pregnancies usually between 3 to 6 weeks. The
procedure is that a physician will inject prostaglandins; a hormones for natural birth
and saline injection into the amniotic sac where the conceptus is floating which result
in a premature delivery and death of the baby.

5. Self-induced Abortion: This form of abortion is carried out with little or no proper
medical supervision. In most cases, it is secretly carried out by woman; especially
young girls who patronize road side chemists or pharmacy stores to buy abortion pills
and some of these pills are swallowed while others are inserted into the body through
the virginal which eventually terminate the life of the fetus. Apart from these pills,
many also swallow local herbs, take dry-gins etc. this method can easily result in
infections and hemorrhaging. Complications may be very severe to cause both death
of the woman and the fetus. It is strongly discouraged. It accounts for one of the
strong reasons in support of the legalization of abortion.

Question about Abortion

Abortion like any other moral issues raises the question of its morality or otherwise.
The central moral question attached to abortion is the question of the biological status
of the fetus. That is, at what stage does life begins? This question raises further
queries concerning the ontological status of the fetus such as: (i) whether the fetus is
an individual organism; (ii) whether the fetus is biologically a human being; (iii)
whether the fetus is psychologically a human being; and (iv) whether the fetus is a

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 21 of 54
person. In response to the question of when life begins, three fundamental
perspectives were given. They are (i) Conception (ii) Quickening

(iii) Viability.

Some scholars are of the view that life begins at conception, that is the moment a
female germ cell, or ovum, is penetrated by male germ cell, spermatozoon. This is the
period spanning through the first trimester. This position is often associated with the
religious people. Others are of the view that life begins at the second trimester which
is the quickening stage. This is the stage at which the mother begins to feel the
movements of the fetus. This occurs somewhere between the thirteenth and twentieth
weeks while another stage in the development of the fetus is the viability stage. This is
the point at which the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. The fetus
ordinarily reaches viability around the twenty fourth week (Ollen & Barry, 1991:162-
163).

ASSESSMENT EXERCISE

What is your understanding of abortion?

CONCLUSION

In this unit, we have considered the meaning and nature of abortion vis-à-vis methods
of abortion and the moral question attached to the morality and/or otherwise of
abortion.

SUMMARY

The meaning and nature of abortion has been examined here. Abortion is conceived as
untimely termination of pregnancy which could be intentional or accidental. Five
methods of abortion were discussed. The central question that deals with the
ontological status of the fetus is examined along the probable responses to the
biological and/or the ontological status of the fetus.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 22 of 54
ASSIGNMENT

How logical do you consider the probable responses to the ontological status of the
fetus and which of the responses is more appealing? Discuss.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Aigbodioh, J. A. (2004). Practical Issues in Applied ethics: TheFacts, Arguments and

Options, Ekpoma: Inno Printing Press.

Awajiusuk, J. F. (2012). “Abortion: A Critical Exposition,” in C. J. Ekwealo (ed.),

Applied and Practical Ethics: A Simplified Course Text, Vol. I. Lagos: African
Environment Ethics and Values Research Group.

Dasaolu, B. O. (2001). "Abortion," in Mabol Olaolu & Ebun Oduwole (eds.)

Fundamental Theories and Issues in Ethics, Ibadan: BEN-EL Books. Omoregbe, J.
(1998) Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Joja Publishers.

Osemwegie, W. T. (2012). “Ethical Issues in Abortion,” in C. J. Ekwealo (ed.),

Applied and Practical Ethics: A Simplified Course Text, Vol. I. Lagos: African
Environment Ethics and Values Research Group.

Reid, C. L (1981). Choice and Action: An Introduction to Ethics, New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST ABORTION

INTRODUCTION

Here, we will examine arguments advanced for and against the morality or otherwise
of abortion. This is to further the readers understanding of the views on abortion as
earlier discussed. This is done with a reflection on the Pro-choice and Pro-life
contention on the morality and/or otherwise of abortion. Those who support abortion
and argue for its permissibility are the one termed Prochoice, while those who oppose
it are referred to as Pro-life (W. T. Osemwegie, 2012:27-28; C. L. Reid, 1981; Olen &
Barry, 1991; A. O. Echekwube, 1999; J. A. Aigbodioh, 2004). Each of these two

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 23 of 54
strands has its contention on which their position is spurred. It is their views and
positions that this section sets to bring to fore.

Argument for Abortion

The Pro-choice argument for the permissibility of capital punishment can be

articulated under the following (i) women have rights over their own bodies (ii)
Unwanted pregnancies carry physical and emotional burdens (iii) the alternative to
legal abortion is back alley abortion (iv) the woman counts more than the fetus. (i)
Women have rights over their own bodies - the main argument here is that an
unwanted pregnancy is an invasion of the woman’s body, and to force a woman to
carry fetus to term is to force her to use her body for purposes she doesn’t want to use
it for. So the real issue here is whether they have the right to avail themselves of a
simple, safe medical procedure to allow themselves to live their lives as they choose.
Clearly the answer has to be yes. It is as fundamental a right as one can think of it. (ii)
Unwanted pregnancies carry physical and emotional burdens – the point here is that
pregnancy is not easy for women. Apart from the morning sickness, the back pains,
the pain of childbirth, and a host of other discomforts in normal pregnancies, the
possibility of unforeseen complications poses a real risk to their physical health and
sometimes even their lives. To demand that a woman face all that in an unwanted
pregnancy is to demand too much. And the unreasonable demands do not even stop
there. Unwanted pregnancies carry emotional burdens as well as physical ones.
Pregnancy can be a significant interruption in a woman’s life, and motherhood can
bring a serious disruption of her hopes and plans. Reproductive freedom is not just a
slogan. It is a matter of allowing a woman to control her own destiny. (iii) The
alternative to legal abortion is back alley abortion – this is saying that thinking that the
burdens of unwanted pregnancy are minor, but many women don’t. If safe, legal
abortions are not available to them they will resort to unsafe, illegal abortions. And if
the past is any guide, that means serious infections in many cases and in some cases
even death, especially for poor women who won’t be able to afford anything but back
alley abortion. (iv) The woman counts more than the fetus – the argument here is that
the woman counts more than the fetus. It is argued that such position that the fetus

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 24 of 54
counts more than the woman is a single assumption which cannot be true. To the Pro-
choice, through this argument a woman is a full-fledged person. She has real desires
and fears, real aspirations and memories. She is connected to the world through her
family and friends. She cares about her life and her future. At the very most a fetus
has only the potential for all that. And though, that is not suggestive of the assumption
that the fetus’ potential counts for nothing, but that an actual full human life out in the
world has to count more than a potential full human life in the womb.

Argument against Abortion

The Pro-life argument for the impermissibility of abortion include the following (i)
Abortion is murder (ii) Abortion sets a dangerous precedent (iii) Abortion involves
psychological risks to the woman (iv) Alternative to abortion are available (v) Women
must be responsible for their sexual activity (i) Abortion is murder – the simple fact of
this argument in matter of abortion is that it is murder. What you call a ‘fetus’ is an
unborn baby, a human being, and an abortion is nothing but the deliberate killing of
that human being. (ii) Abortion sets a dangerous precedent – the point here in the view
of the pro-life is that anything that leads to disrespect for human life is wrong.
Whatever else you say about abortion, it certainly leads to disrespect for and a causal
attitude toward human life. And that doesn’t just hold for abortions of convenience or
for sex selection. It holds for therapeutic abortions and abortions of deformed fetuses
as well. Once we decide that some human lives can be destroyed because they are
inconvenient or not worth living, what is to stop us from killing the severely
handicapped, the dysfunctional, the senile, and the mentally ill. (iii) Abortion involves
psychological risks to the woman – the argument here is that a woman and the child
she is carrying are as close to each other as any two humans can get. And this is not
just biological closeness, but emotional and psychological. Just ask any mother. A
woman who intentionally harms her unborn child violates the deepest levels of her
unconscious needs and desires, and she is bound to pay a psychological price for it.
Many already have, as both psychologists and women who have had abortions can tell
you. (iv) Alternative to abortion are available – the pro-life through this anti-abortion
argument posits that the rights advocates of abortion only make it sound as though

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 25 of 54
abortion is the only alternative to rearing an unwanted child. But it is not. Countless
couples and individuals are dying to have children but cannot, because of all the
abortion mills throughout the country, many of them cannot even adopt a health
infant. So adoption is one alternative to abortion. Even in cases of severely deformed
infants there are alternatives. If no one wants to adopt them, there are plenty of
agencies and institutions to take care of them. (v) Women must be responsible for
their sexual activity – the onus of this argument is that no woman has to get pregnant
if she does not want. There are plenty of readily available contraceptives in the
market. If a woman doesn’t take advantage of them, it is her own fault and she has to
take responsibility for her carelessness. To condone abortion is to condone her own
irresponsibility. Even worse, it is to condone the killing of innocent life as an after the
fact form of birth control.

ASSESSMENT

Within your understanding of the Pro-choice and Pro-life, do you think abortion
should be legalized? Justify your claim.

CONCLUSION

We have considered four major arguments for and five arguments against abortion
from the two major camps that is, the Pro-choice and Pro-life camps.

SUMMARY

We examined the argument for and against abortion as advanced by the Pro-choice
and Pro-life. The argument therein seems to strike a balance such that the idea of
abortion can and may still retain its essence if the views of the schools of thought in
abortion could be sustained.

ASSIGNMENT

How viable is the claim that abortion is murder? Explain.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 26 of 54
REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Aigbodioh, J. A. (2004). Practical Issues in Applied ethics: The Facts, Arguments and
Options, Ekpoma: Inno Printing Press.

Dasaolu, B. O. (2001). "Abortion," in Mabol Olaolu & Ebun Oduwole (eds.)

Fundamental Theories and Issues in Ethics, Ibadan: BEN-EL Books.

Echekwube, A. O. (1999). Contemporary Ethics: History, theories and Issues, Lagos:

Spero Book Ltd.

Olen, J. & Barry, V. (1991). Applying Ethics: A Test with Readings, 4th Ed.
Califonia: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Omoregbe, J. (1998) Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study, Lagos: Joja

Publishers. Osemwegie, W. T. (2012). “Ethical Issues in Abortion,” in C. J.

Ekwealo (ed.), Applied and Practical Ethics: A Simplified Course Text, Vol. I. Lagos:
African Environment Ethics and Values Research Group.

Reid, C. L (1981). Choice and Action: An Introduction to Ethics, New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

INTRODUCTION

Here we attempt a conceptual clarification of the key term of this section, namely;
marriage, same sex marriage. In addition to this, it takes a philosophical excursion into
the nature of same sex marriage, as well as stating the countries in which it is being
legalized.

What is marriage?

Marriage is the world’s oldest institution. In Christendom, it is believed that it was

instituted by God himself, (Genesis 2:18) and it is as old as man’s creation (Bible
Dictionary). Marriage therefore, is believed to be a sacred union that exists between a
man and a woman. The term marriage has been described elsewhere as “a socially

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 27 of 54
sanctioned union, typically of one man and one woman, in this connection called
husband and wife. Typically, they form a family, socially, through forming a
household, which is often subsequently extended biologically, through children. It is
found in all societies, but in widely varying forms” (Ibrahim B. Syed, 2019:1). In
Islam, marriage has been defined as “a contract that results in the man and woman
living with each other and supporting each other within the limits of what has been
laid down for them in terms of rights and obligations” (Ibrahim B. Syed, 2019:4).
Furthermore, “it is a mutual contract between a man and a woman whose goal is for
each to enjoy the other, become a pious family and sound society (Ibrahim B. Syed,
2019:4). Marriage according to Lord Bughley refers to, “the voluntary union for life
of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” (Duhaime, L., n.d.). In
Islam, the function of marriage has been stated thus: Marriage acts as an outlet for
sexual needs and regulates it so one does not become a slave to his/her desires. It is a
social necessity because through marriage, families are established and the family is
the fundamental unit of every society…Marriage is the only legitimate way to indulge
in intimacy between a man and a woman (Ahmad B. Dogarawa, 2009:2). It has further
been canvassed that: Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband
and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on
the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the
biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality
that children need both a mother and a father (Anderson, 2013). Traditionally,
marriage, according to Henry Tichler, “is the socially recognized, legitimized, and
supported union of individuals of opposite sexes” (Tichler, 2004:296). He goes further
to characterize marriage as involving some basic elements viz: (1) It takes place in a
public and usually formal manner; (2) it includes sexual intercourse as an explicit
element of the relationship; (3) it provides the essential for legitimizing offspring; that
is, it provides newborns with socially accepted statuses, and (4) it is intended to be a
stable and enduring relationship (Tichler, 2004:296). Tichler’s definition and
characterization of marriage is typical of the traditional and religious sense of
marriage, and it is the sense in which “marriage” was known for many decades.
However, with the advent of liberal voices for the recognition of same-sex couples,

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 28 of 54
there have been several calls for re-conceptualization of the term marriage, to the
extent that marriage is now regarded as the union of two people living together as
spouses in a family. This characterization fits same-sex marriage quite well. Indeed, it
is in this sense that same-sex marriage is basically seen as involving “two people of
the same-sex living together as spouses/family” (Tichler, 2004:296). The notion of
same-sex connotes so many other notions describing a certain intimate relationship
having to do with people of the same sex attracted to each other. Thus, the idea of
same-sex involves homosexuality, gay and lesbianism. These terms simply refer to
activities of persons having sexual feelings or orientation to persons of their own sex.
The terms homosexual and gay are mostly used to characterize the males, while the
term lesbian refer to the female homosexuals.

What is same sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is a marriage entered into by people
of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. The
requirements of a marriage in a country depend on its applicable laws and regulations.
In most religious countries, it is imperative that a marriage only takes place between a
man and a woman who are bond together to form a family based on both religious and
national laws, whereas in some countries that have a rather liberal view on religion,
religious law does not play any significant role in a marriage contract between two
individuals but rather the provisions of applicable laws. In the Kenyan context, a legal
and legitimate marriage relationship must occur only between a man and a woman,
unlike some countries whereby a legal and legitimate marriage may also take place
between persons of the same sex. The practice of same-sex marriage (or gay-marriage
as mostly used in the western world) is not a recent thing as some people would want
to believe. Though the first law providing for people of same sex marriage was
enacted in the 21st century, precisely in the Netherlands, in April 2001, the practice of
same-sex marriage has been there right from ancient times. Historian John Boswell
records that the first performance of same-sex marriage between child emperor
Elagabus to Hierocles, his chariot driver, as the husband. He is also said to have
married Zoticus, an athlete in a lavish public ceremony in Rome. Nero, the first

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 29 of 54
Roman Emperor, is recorded in history to have engaged in same-sex marriage. He
married two other males on different occasions. The first was Pythagoras, with whom
Nero was the bride. He later married Sporus, a young boy, and here took the role of
the groom. These were done in a public ceremony with all the solemnities of
matrimony (Frier, B.W., 2004). Medieval times accord the same-sex marriage
between Perodias and Munho Vandilas in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veig,
Spain. This union occurred April 16, 1061 and was conducted by a Priest in a small
chapel. The contemporary period witnessed a heightening of gay rights activism in the
1970s, especially in the western world. Though gay people were not initially
interested in marriage as they deemed it to be a traditional institution, they
successfully laid the seed for recognition of such unions. The search for legal
recognition of same-sex relationship took root between the 1980s and 1990s. Denmark
was the trail blazer in recognizing a legal relationship between same- sex couples in
1989. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation to legally recognize same- sex
marriage and since then, many countries have followed suit, viz: Belgium (2003),
Spain (2005), Canada (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009) Sweden (2009),
Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010); Argentina (2010) Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013),
France (2013), Urguguay (2013) New Zealand (2013) United Kingdom, Luxembery
(2015) United States (2015), Ireland (2015), Finland (2017). It is believed that more
than 20 nations so far, have legally recognized same sex marriage. The above
chronicle, one may argue, does not suggest that same sex marriage is yet a global
phenomenon. But it should be noted that when it began during the Roman Empire and
the medieval period, a lot of people took it merely as an isolated phenomenon. But
today, the phenomenon has become somewhat ubiquitous around every continent of
the world. Meanwhile, it is imperative to note that same-sex marriage is not entirely a
western phenomenon. In Africa for instance, there are some traditional societies that
recognize and accept the marriage between two women; one taking the role of the man
(husband), and the other taking the role of the wife. But this type of marriage is
regarded as non-sexual. In Nigeria for instance, it has been recorded that same-sex
marriage is recognized in the southern part of the country. Leo Igwe (2009) notes that
in Igbo culture, a woman could marry another woman (as a wife) to perpetuate her

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 30 of 54
inheritance and family lineage, if, for instance, her husband is dead and she had no
child for him. Also, in a childless marriage, where the husband is alive, the wife can
take the initiative to marry a younger woman for her husband. This arrangement is
also common among the Ibibio, and other subcultures. Female same-sex marriage is
also practiced in Kenya, among the Gikiyu, Nandi, Kamba, Kipsigis people. There,
such marriages are not propelled by homosexuality but is a way of sustaining family
lineage and inheritance; especially for families without sons. (Lilian, L.A., & et.al
2013: 35). According to Paul (2011), such traditional practices have been aspects of
the traditional practices and were protected under Article II (1) of the 2010
constitution. Paul notes that a case in point was referred to by Justice Jackson Ojwang,
where Kibserea, an 85-year-old childless widow married a single mother of two boys
who was in her thirties, named Jesang. Kibserea paid a dowry to Jesang’s father and a

traditional Nandi wedding ceremony was held in 2006. Kibserea had also promised to
choose a mature man to satisfy Jesang’s sexual needs. In this wise, Kibserea became
the socially and legally recognized husband of Jesang, and of course the father of her
wife’s children. Paul, citing the Journal of Ethnology notes that: “… a female husband
is a woman who pays bride wealth for, and thus marries (but does not have sexual
intercourse with) another woman. By so doing, she becomes the social and legal father
of her wife’s children.” (Paul C., 2011).

CONCLUSION

We have thus considered the meaning of marriage and same sex marriage. On the
meaning of marriage, Lord Bughley refers to marriage as “the voluntary union for life
of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” Similarly, Henry Tichler
(2004) defines marriage as “the socially recognized, legitimized, and supported union
of individuals of opposite sexes”. Same-sex marriage is a marriage entered into by
people of the same sex, either as a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting.
Thus, the foregoing shows that while the western practice of same-sex marriage is
propelled by homosexuality, the sub-Saharan Africans practice is borne out of the
need to perpetuate the lineage and inheritance of the family, which could be argued, is
based on the traditional demand of marriage.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 31 of 54
SUMMARY

Marriage is the world’s oldest institution which is believed to be a sacred union that
exists between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is also known as gay marriage
which is a marriage entered into by people of the same sex. The first law providing for
people of same-sex marriage was enacted in the 21st century, precisely in the
Netherlands, in April 2001.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Ahmad, B. D. (2009). Marriage and Divorce in Islam. Available at

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/23194/, accessed on Saturday, 05 November 2022

Bible Dictionary, “The institution of marriage dates from the time of man's original
creation”. Available atwww.bible.dictionary.org/marriage, accessed on Saturday, 05
November 2022

Chamie, J.f., & Mirkin, B. (2011). Same-sex marriage: A new social phenomenon.
Population and Development Review, 37(3), 529-551.

Choi, P. (2016, May 20). Same-sex marriage and the global antichristian movement.
Global Alliance Newsletter. Available at www.intercp.org/2013/05/same-sex-
marriage-and- theglobal- anti-christiaan-movement, accessed on Saturday, 05
November 2022.

Dasaolu, B. O. (2018). "On Efficient Causation for Homosexual Behaviours among

Traditional Africans: An Exploration of the Traditional Yoruba Model." Bangladesh
Journal of Bioethics, 9 (2)

Dasaolu, B. O. (2018). “Òrìṣàńlá Made me Thus: Arguing for homosexuality using

the Yorùbá Thought System as Paradigm,” LASU Journal of Philosophy, 1 (1&2)

Duhaime, L. (n.d.). Duhaime’s Law Dictionary: Marriage Definition. Available at

www.duhaime.org/Legal-Dictionary/Term/Marriage., accessed on Saturday, 05
November 2022.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 32 of 54
Frier, B.W., (2004). Roman Same-Sex Weddings from the Legal Perspective.
Classical Studies Newsletter, Volume X. Gerber, P., Tay, K., & Sifri, A. (2014).
Marriage: A Human Right for All? Sydney Law Review, 36, 643-667.

Ibrahim B. Syed (2019) ‘Same Sex Marriage and Marriage in Islam.’ Available at
http:/www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/same_sex_marriage_and_marriage_i.htm,
accessed on Saturday, 05 November 2022.

Igwe, L. (2009, June 19). Tradition of same gender marriage in Igbo land. Nigerian
Tribune. 13.

KJV Bible

Lilian, L.A., Sibonile, E.E., Lia, L., & Jane, S., (2013). Gender and Language in Sub-
Saharan Africa. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Paul C. (2011, October 20). Traditional same-sex marriage approved by Kenyan court.
Available at www.care2.com/causes/traditional-same-sex-marriage

Ryan T. Anderson (2013) Marriage: What it is, why it Matters, and the Consequences
of Redefining it. Available athttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports, accessed on
Saturday, 05 November 2022.

Ticher, H. L. (2004). Introduction to Sociology. (8th ed). Belmont: Thompson

Wadsworth Press

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE

INTRODUCTION

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 33 of 54
Here an exposition into the debate about same sex marriage is considered. The debate
comes from two camps, whereby one is in support and the other against same sex
marriage.

Arguments for Same Sex Marriage

Homosexuality is normal: Homosexuality is a normal variant within the human

condition. In some useful aspects, homosexuality might be likened to left-handedness,
another normal variant in the human condition. Interestingly, cultural and social
pressures often encourage left-handed children to become right-handed although
evidence indicates that such a forced conversion can cause multiple problems,
including learning disorders and stuttering. Historically, religions have condemned
left-handedness, justifying this with many biblical passages, including Matthew
25:32-34. Many religious schools punished students who used their left hands
(Alhassan, A.B., 2017). Perhaps even more pertinent is that in 19th century Europe,
homosexuals were referred to as “left-handed” (Chris, M., 2019). However, the
American Academy of Paediatrics, the American Counselling Association, the
American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the
National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social
Workers, the National Psychoanalytic Association have all declared that
homosexuality is normal (Robinson, B.A., 2017). Love thy Neighbour: Supporters of
same-sex marriage acknowledge there are passages in the Bible that condemn same-
sex marriage but they note that biblical traditions grew out of different times with
different customs and different needs. Leviticus, for example, widely cited as the basis
for God’s opposition to homosexuality, also declares that God wants children who
curse their parents to be put to death (20:9) However, the overwhelming message of
the New Testament is love, not hate. Jesus never once mentions homosexuality. It is
clear that what is important in the Bible is not a family structure based on biology or
even heterosexual relationships but the quality of love exhibited in relationships,
observes Episcopal priest Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson (Articles of Faith: Biblical
Values for American Families). Therefore, if same-sex couples exhibit such love they
deserve world-wide acceptance. Religious and Personal Liberty: Appeals to religious

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 34 of 54
freedom must be rooted in consistent teaching and practice. But the Catholic Church,
for instance, does not recognize marriages after divorce, unless the partner seeking to
remarry obtains an annulment. Yet it has been willing to accord divorced partners who
remarry under civil law the same privileges it accords marriages performed within the
Church. The examples opponents to same-sex marriage cite as interfering with
religious liberty have all occurred under existing anti-discrimination laws. Are they
advocating overturning those laws? In most of these cases religious institutions are not
being forced to conform to laws they find morally repugnant. Rather, they are being
asked to decide whether they will continue to accept significant government subsidies
that come with certain strings attached, as was the case with Catholic Charities
involvement with adoptions in Massachusetts and Illinois. Personal liberty is
compatible with religious freedom. If exemptions need to be made to accommodate
religions that should be possible. The courts have for many years been reviewing and
ruling on cases that test the boundary line between religious freedom and equal
protection. Amendments to countries’ constitutions to limit marriage to a union of a
man and a woman single out one class of men for discrimination. Support seems
driven primarily by profound personal discomfort with homosexuality, not a desire to
defend the institution of marriage. Indeed, the debate about same-sex marriage may
have spurred a dramatic increase in violence toward gays and lesbians. According to
political scientist Gary Segura: in 2008, crimes in America against gay men and
lesbians accounted for seventy-one per cent of all hate-motivated murders and fifty-
five per cent of all hate- motivated rapes. He concludes, “there is simply no other
person in society who endures the likelihood of being harmed as a consequence of
their identity than a gay man or lesbian” (Amicus Brief). Moral disapproval alone
should not be a sufficient reason to deny rights to a minority. Unless a clear and
imminent danger exists, countries do not and should not regulate family life on the
basis of parental characteristics.

Arguments against Same Sex Marriage

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 35 of 54
Same sex marriage is a sin: The acceptance of same-sex marriage legitimizes and
gives society’s blessing on homosexual behaviour. Almost all major religions
condemn homosexuality as sinful behaviour (See William Witt, Hermeneutics of
Same-sex Marriage. March 4, 2012. http://willgwitt.org/hermeneutics_of_samesex_

practice/). Leviticus, the third book of the Hebrew Bible says, “Thou shalt not lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). The New
Testament affirms this view, noting, “… God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones…Men committed
indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion” (Romans 1:26-27). Islam teaches that homosexuality is a vile form of
fornication punishable by death (Guide to Understanding Islam). Orthodox Judaism
considers it an “abomination” and punishable by death (Rabbi Amsel). In 2003, the
Southern Baptist Convention came to a resolution which stated that “‘same-sex
marriage’ would convey a societal approval of a homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible
calls sinful and dangerous both to the individuals involved and to society at large” (On
Same-Sex Marriage, June 2003). Similarly, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church
believes, “[H]omosexual practice is a distortion of the image of God as it is still
reflected in fallen man, and a perversion of the sexual relationship as God intended it
to be” (Position Paper on Homosexuality). Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate
marriage from its procreative purpose: Traditionally, marriage and procreation have
been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the
primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child
who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily
emotional terms. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters
an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous
social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would
only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it
establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage. This was
spelt out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion
dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that
have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the
O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 36 of 54
lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada
have birth-rates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the
replacement fertility rate of 2.1. Same-Sex Marriage Endangers Children: “Marriage is
fundamentally about the needs of children,” says David Blankenhorn, author of The
Future of Marriage and the founder and president of the Institute for American Values.
“(W)hat children need most are mothers and fathers” (Robert P. George and Ryan T.
Anderson, April 23, 2007.). The mother and the father bring different and important
traits to child rearing. Psychiatrist Harold M. Voth of the Menninger Foundation
wrote in 1978, “One of the most important functions of parenting is to evoke, develop
and reinforce gender identity and then proceed to shepherd the developing child in
such a way as to bring his psychological side into harmony with his biological side
and therefore develop a solid sense of maleness or femaleness . . .” (Report of
Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law. State of Hawaii). Children are better
off when raised by both a father and mother. Child Trends, a leading independent
nonpartisan research concludes; Research clearly demonstrates that family structure
matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family
headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single parent
families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step-families or
cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes . . . . There is thus value
for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents . . . . [I]t
is not simply the presence of two parents . . . but the presence of two biological
parents that seems to support children’s development. (Kristin Anderson Moore,
Susan M. Jekielek and Carol Emig, June 2002) The Catholic Church raises to a moral
principle “the right of the child to be born from one father and one mother who are
father and mother both from a biological and a legal point of view” (Compendium of
the Social Doctrine of the Church). We know from biology that two males or two
females cannot have a marital union that is biologically open to new life. This means
that, in order for a same-sex couple to conceive a child, the couple would have to take
either sperm or an egg from someone who is a stranger to their relationship. So, in
order to conceive a child, a same-sex couple would have to overlook the child’s right
to be raised by both of his or her biological parents. Religious Liberty: The acceptance

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 37 of 54
of same-sex marriage can be said to be a threat to religious freedom. The Catholic
Church defines ‘religious freedom’ as meaning “that all men are to be immune from
coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in
such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,
whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due
limits” (Dignitatis Humane. Pope Paul VI. December 7, 1965). If same-sex marriage
is widely accepted, churches will be forced to aid and abet behaviour contrary to their
moral teachings. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops notes, Changing
the legal term “marriage” is not one change in the law, but rather amounts to
thousands of changes at once. The term “marriage” can be found in family law,
employment law, trusts and estates, healthcare law, tax law, property law, and many
others. These laws affect and pervasively regulate religious institutions, such as
churches, religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, and families… When Church and
State disagree on what the term “marriage” means … conflict results . . . as the State
will apply various sanctions against the Church for its refusal to comply with the
State’s definition” (Marriage: Unique for a Reason. The United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops).

CONCLUSION

We have been able to discuss the arguments for and against same-sex marriage.
Advocates of same-sex marriage see homosexuality as a normal variant within the
human condition and should be accepted generally. On the other hand, the reasons
given by opponents of same-sex marriage are grounded on biological stance, religious
stance and purpose of the institution of marriage. With respect to the institution of
marriage, these opponents argue, same-sex couples are simply not similar to different
sex couples, because marriage by definition, morally and practically requires a man
and a woman.

SUMMARY

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 38 of 54
According to the supporters of same-sex marriage, homosexuality is a normal variant
within the human condition. It was pointed out that even Jesus Christ never mentioned
homosexuality in his response to the Pharisee’s question but emphasized ‘love’ as the
most supreme of all laws. Opponents of same-sex marriage posit that same sex-
marriage is a sin against God. Furthermore, it does not conform to the ideal of
marriage, which is supposed to be between man and woman.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Alhassan, A.B., (2017). “Left Handedness, The Bible and The Quran: Implication for
Parents and Teachers”. Research & Reviews: Journal of Educational Studies

Amicus Brief. ACLU of Northern California and LAMBDA Legal Defense and
Education Fund. 2010. http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/2011_03_01__EQC

A_et_al__Amicus_Brief.pdf?docID=8241

Articles of Faith: Biblical Values for American Families.

http://www.clgs.org/resource-library/articles-faith-biblicalvalues-american-families

Chris, M., (2019). “Half a Century of Handedness Research: Myths, Truths; Fictions,
Facts; Backwards, but mostly Forwards.” Brain Neurosci Adv. Compendium of the
Social Doctrine of the Church.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7215

Dasaolu, B. O. (2018). "On Efficient Causation for Homosexual Behaviours among

Traditional Africans: An Exploration of the Traditional Yoruba Model." Bangladesh
Journal of Bioethics, 9 (2)

Dasaolu, B. O. (2018). “Òrìṣàńlá Made me Thus: Arguing for homosexuality using

the Yorùbá Thought System as Paradigm,” LASU Journal of Philosophy, 1 (1&2)

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 39 of 54
Dignitatis Humane. Pope Paul VI. December 7, 1965.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-
ii_decl_19651207_dignitatishumanae_en.html

For national fertility rates, see:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and

procreation, see:

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf

Guide to Understanding Islamic views on homosexuality.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/026- homosexuality.htm

Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek and Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child’s
Perspective: How Does FamilyStructure Affect Children, and What Can We Do
About It? Child Trends Research Brief. June 2002.

http://www.childtrends.org/files/marriagerb602.pdf

Leviticus 18:22 Marriage: Unique for a Reason. The United States Conference of

Catholic Bishops. http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/religious-liberty-faq/

Matthew 22:35-40 On Same-Sex Marriage (June 2003).

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128

Position Paper on Homosexuality. http://www.epc.org/about-theepc/ position-

papers/homosexuality/

Rabbi Amsel, Homosexuality in Orthodox Islam.

http://www.lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 40 of 54
Robert P. George and Ryan T. Anderson, “Our Marital Future”, National Review.
April 23, 2007. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220636/

ourmaritalfuture/robert-p-george

Robinson, B.A., (2017). Reparative Therapy: Statements by Professional Associations

and Their Leaders. ReligiousTolerance.org. http://www.religioustolerance.org/using-
reparative-therapy- 1.htm

CLONING

INTRODUCTION

An attempt at a conceptual clarification of the key term of this section is sought,

cloning. In addition to this, it takes a philosophical excursion into the history of
cloning as well as the types and uses of cloning, genetic copy of a molecule, cell,
plant, animal, or human being. In some of these contexts, cloning refers to established
technologies that have been part of agricultural practice for a very long time and
currently form an important part of the foundations of modern biological research.
Indeed, genetically identical copies of whole organisms are commonplace in the plant
breeding world and are commonly referred to as “varieties” rather than clones. Many
valuable horticultural or agricultural strains are maintained solely by vegetative
propagation from an original plant, reflecting the ease with which it is possible to
regenerate a complete plant from a small cutting. The developmental process in
animals does not usually permit cloning as easily as in plants. Many simpler
invertebrate species, however, such as certain kinds of worms, are capable of
regenerating a whole organism from a small piece, even though this is not necessarily
their usual mode of reproduction. Vertebrates have lost this ability entirely, although
regeneration of certain limbs, organs, or tissues can occur to varying degrees in some
animals. Although a single adult vertebrate cannot generate another whole organism,
cloning of vertebrates does occur in nature, in a limited way, through multiple births,
primarily with the formation of identical twins. However, twins occur by chance in

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 41 of 54
humans and other mammals with the separation of a single embryo into halves at an
early stage of development. The resulting offspring are genetically identical, having
been derived from one zygote, which resulted from the fertilization of one egg by one
sperm. At the molecular and cellular level, scientists have been cloning human and
animal cells and genes for several decades. The scientific justification for such cloning
is that it provides greater quantities of identical cells or genes for study; each cell or
molecule is identical to the others. At the simplest level, molecular biologists routinely
make clones of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the molecular basis of genes. DNA
fragments containing genes are copied and amplified in a host cell, usually a
bacterium. The availability of large quantities of identical DNA makes possible many
scientific experiments. This process, often called molecular cloning, is the mainstay of
recombinant DNA technology and has led to the production of such important
medicines as insulin to treat diabetes, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) to dissolve
clots after a heart attack, and erythropoietin (EPO) to treat anaemia associated with
dialysis for kidney disease. Another type of cloning is conducted at the cellular level.
In cellular cloning copies are made of cells derived from the soma, or body, by
growing these cells in culture in a laboratory. The genetic makeup of the resulting
cloned cells, called a cell line, is identical to that of the original cell. This, too, is a
highly reliable procedure, which is also used to test and sometimes to produce new
medicines such as those listed above. Since molecular and cellular cloning of this sort
does not involve germ cells (eggs or sperm), the cloned cells are not capable of
developing into a baby. The third type of cloning aims to reproduce genetically
identical animals. Cloning of animals can typically be divided into two distinct
processes, blastomere separation and nuclear transplantation cloning.

History of Cloning

In 1903 Herber Webber, a U.S. department of agriculture personal, was the first to use
the word ‘clon’ which later was spelled clone. According Clone Safety, Webber’s
definition of a ‘clon’ was “any group of cells or organisms produced asexually from a
single sexually produced ancestor” (Clone Safety). The first historically noted cloning
was with frogs. This cloning was done by Robert Briggs and Thomas King in 1952.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 42 of 54
This idea of cloning frogs was first offered up by Hans Spemann in 1938 (Clone
Safety). In 1963 China created clones of carp. According to Wikipedia Tong Dizhou
performed the process by “inserting the DNA from a cell of a male carp into an egg
from a female carp” (Clone Safety; Wikipedia). During the years of 1994 and 1997
scientists Neal First, Ian Wilmut, and his colleagues at Roslin institute contributed to
the cloning of Dolly the sheep. 1994 - Neal First makes genetic copies of calves from
embryos whose cells then divide until they reach about 120. 1995 – Wilmut builds
onto First's experiment by using sheep embryos instead and inactivating the embryos
before transferring the nuclei from the embryos into sheep eggs. 1996 -Wilmut and his
colleagues had a successful cloned sheep that everyone knows as Dolly. 1997 –
Wilmut and his colleagues officially went public with their successful cloned sheep
(ahc.umn). This progress in cloning brought up many questions about the ethics and
safety of cloning causing President Bill Clinton to place a five-year ban on cloning in
1997 (ahc.umn). In 1998 The University of Hawaii had successfully clone three
generations of mice (ahc.umn). In 2003 the U.S. House passed the Human Cloning
Prohibition Act. Canada followed close behind by also banning cloning in 2005.
Unlike the U.S. and Canada, South Korea allows scientists to continue attempts at
cloning. Also, in 2005 “United Nations past a non-binding declaration calling on all
Member States to ban all forms of human cloning” (UN, 2005). During history, after
Dolly, many different animals have been cloned, including Rhesus monkey, Gaur
(first endangered species cloned), cattle, a cat, a dog, a rat, a mule, horse, water
buffalo, and a camel have all been cloned. (Donald, 2020: 552)

Types of Cloning

There are three types of cloning, Therapeutic, Reproductive, and DNA Cloning
(Human Genome Project).

Therapeutic: The purpose of this cloning is to grow stem cells. They use the stem cells
to harvest organs and help treat diseases not for human cloning. (Human Genome
Project) According to the Stem Cell Center the definition of therapeutic cloning refers
to “the removal of a nucleus, which contains genetic material, from virtually any cell
of the body (a somatic cell) and its transfer by injection into an unfertilized egg from

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 43 of 54
which the nucleus has also been removed. The newly reconstructed entity then starts
dividing. After 4-5 days in culture, embryonic stem cells then can be removed and
used to create many embryonic stem cells in culture” (Stem Cell Centre). Many times,
while attempting therapeutic cloning the embryo is destroyed, causing many people to
be skeptical of this type of cloning (CBSE).

Reproductive: Reproductive cloning is the most commonly known of the three types
of cloning. Reproductive cloning is a technologically based way of creating an animal
with the same nuclear DNA as the animal’s DNA it was taken from (Human Genome
Project). Dolly the sheep was created by reproductive cloning (Human Genome
Project). And according to the Human Genome Project this was cause by a process
called “‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’ (SCNT), scientists transfer genetic material
from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic
material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor
cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell
division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the
uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth” (Human Genome
Project).

DNA: DNA cloning is also known as “Molecular cloning, Gene cloning, and
Recombinant DNA technology” (CBSE). According to genome.gov “Gene cloning,
also known as DNA cloning, is a very different process from reproductive and
therapeutic cloning.” According to the Human Genome Project, DNA cloning is the
“transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating
genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid. The DNA of interest can then be
propagated in a foreign host cell.” What this is saying is DNA cloning is making
copies of DNA fragments (Human Genome Project; CBSE)

Uses of Cloning

Reproductive Uses: Reproductive cloning could be used by cloning animals and then
using the cloned animals for drug testing and other treatments. This could also be used
to produce perfect foods like dairy (National Human Genome Research Institute,

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 44 of 54
2020). Also, Reproductive cloning can be used to rebuild populations. “In 2001,
researchers produced the first clone of an endangered species: a type of Asian ox
known as a guar. sadly, the baby guar, which had developed inside a surrogate cow
mother, died just a few days after its birth. In 2003, another endangered type of
ox,called the Banteg, was successfully cloned. Soon after, three African wildcats were
cloned using frozen embryos as a source of DNA. Although some experts think
cloning can save many species that would otherwise disappear, others argue that
cloning produces a population of genetically identical individuals that lack the genetic
variability necessary for species survival” (National Human Genome Research
Institute, 2020).

Therapeutic Cloning Uses: Therapeutic cloning can be used “to grow tissues in the
laboratory that can be used to grow healthy tissue to replace injured or diseased
tissues.” This is saying that in the future once this use is perfected many diseases will
be cured. “In addition, it may be possible to learn more about the molecular causes of
disease by studying embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos derived from the
cells of animals or humans with different diseases.” In the future we will be able to
prevent diseases. (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2020). DNA Cloning
Uses: DNA cloning can be used to study the human genome and figure out what genes
contribute to certain diseases (CBSE).

CONCLUSION

In this section, we have considered the meaning, history, types and uses of cloning.
We were made to understand that the term ‘clone’ is being used in many different
contexts in biological research. In some of these contexts, cloning is said to refer to
established technologies that have been part of agricultural practice for a very long
time and currently form an important part of the foundations of modern biological
research.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 45 of 54
SUMMARY

Cloning refers to a precise genetic copy of a molecule, cell, plant, animal, or human
being. There are three types of cloning, Therapeutic, Reproductive, and DNA Cloning.
Cloning can be used for reproductive, therapeutic and DNA purposes.

REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

ahc.umnhttp://www.ahc.umn.edu/bioethics/prod/groups/ahc/@pub/@ahc/documents/a
sset/ahc_75696.pdf

CBSE. http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/sites/default/files/ThreeTypesClon ing.pdf

Clone Safety. http://www.clonesafety.org/

Dasaolu, B. O. (2004). "Artificial Human Creation: An Examination of the Cleavage

between Theology and Science." Journal of Philosophy and Culture, 1 (1).

Dasaolu, B. O. (2008). From Home to the Laboratory: An Ethical Assessment of a

New Reproductive Technology,

DRUMSPEAK: International Journal of Research in The Humanities,1 (1).

Dasaolu, B. O. (2011). "The Idea of Human Cloning in Contemporary Times: Fears

and Prospects." Journal of Philosophy and Development, 12 (1 & 2).

Dasaolu, B. O. (2018). "The Techno-Moral Case against Cloning: How Martin

Heidegger Justifies the Kantian," Philosophia:

E-Journal for Philosophy and Culture. 19 (1) Donald, W.L., (2020). Vertebrate
Biology: Systematics, Taxonomy, Natural History, and Conservation. JHU Press.

Dovey, Dana. 2015. The Science of Human Cloning: How Far We've Come and How
Far We're Capable of Going, Medical Daily, Jun 26, 2015.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 46 of 54
Evers, Kathinka (2002). European Perspectives on Therapeutic Cloning. New England
Journal of Medicine, 346(20), 1579- 1582. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb020527

National Human Genome Research Institute, (2020). Cloning Fact Sheet. Available
on: https://www.genome.gov/aboutgenomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet

Jensen, Eric A. (2016). The Therapeutic Cloning Debate: Global Science and
Journalism in the Public Sphere. Abingdon-on- Thames: Routledge.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1998). Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies about Human
Cloning. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Stem Cell Centre. http://www.stemcellcentre.edu.au/For_the_Public/Types_of_

Stem_Cells/Somatic_Cell_Nuclear_Transfer__SCNT__or_Therapeutic_Cloning.aspx

UN, (2005). General Assembly Adopts United Nations Declaration on Human

Cloning by Vote of 84-34-37. https://www.un.org/press/en/2005ga10333.doc.htm

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST CLONING

INTRODUCTION

This unit attempts an exposition into the debate about cloning. The debate comes from
two camps, whereby one is in support and the other against cloning.

Arguments for Cloning

Cure for infertility: The most straightforward reason why someone may want to
reproduce through cloning is to have a genetically related child. Currently, those who
want a child but cannot produce an embryo because they are infertile, can either use a
donor embryo and carry it to term (or have it carried to term by a surrogate), or adopt
a child. In neither case, however, will the child be genetically related to them. Cloning
would allow these people to have a genetically related child. Moreover, if a couple
uses the female partner’s egg in the cloning procedure, then the child could be
genetically related to both rearing parents, as it would share his mitochondrial DNA
with the woman whose egg was used, and the nuclear DNA of the woman’s partner

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 47 of 54
who provided the somatic cell. Many deny that individuals have a justified interest in
having a child that is genetically related to them (Bartholet, 1999; Levy and Lotz
2005). Regardless of whether the desire to have a child who is genetically related is
ethically problematic in some way, it is often considered a sufficient reason to allow
people access to other cures for infertility – namely in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
Therefore, it may also provide a plausible basis for allowing access to cloning
technologies. Increase Health/Well-being for Children: Cloning may also be desirable
for parents who do not necessarily want a child who is genetically related to them, but
who want a child who is expected to have a high level of health and/or well-being.
Cloning would enable parents to have a child with a genome identical to that of a
person with good health and/or other desirable characteristics. John Harris (2004, pp.
29-30) stresses the point that cloning allows parents to provide someone with a ‘tried
and tested’ genome, not one created by the genetic lottery of sexual reproduction and
the random combination of chromosomes. If we choose our cell donor wisely, Harris
argues, we will be able to protect the clone from many hereditary disorders and many
other genetic problems. Furthermore, SCNT could be used in combination with gene
editing technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 (a type of enzyme, used in gene editing
technologies). This could be used to create ‘near’ clones, which have the same
genotype as a very healthy donor, but with subtle improvements. It is not clear how
effective such a technique would be. The effects of genes on health and well-being are
relative to the environments in which they are expressed. Subtle environmental
changes between generations could turn a genome associated with health to one
associated with serious disease. However, if the relevant environmental conditions
remain the same, cloning could be the most effective way to create a child with the
greatest expected health/wellbeing. A ‘replacement child’: In 2009, Panos Zavos, a
controversial fertility doctor in the US, claimed to have created cloned embryos using
tissues from three deceased people, one of them a young girl who had died in a car
crash (Jones, 2009). He said his intent was to study the cloning procedure, not to
create babies. However, he stressed that in the future, cloning could be used to create
genetic copies of deceased loved ones. For example, parents whose child

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 48 of 54
had died could create a genetically identical ‘replacement child’. Again, this could be
used in combination with gene editing technologies, to produce near clones of a
deceased child. Parents who had tragically lost a child due to some genetic disease,
could produce a clone of that child with the fatal flaw corrected. However, the
motivation of cloning a child as a replacement is based on erroneous assumptions
about cloning. The idea that by cloning a child we would create a copy of that same
child embodies the view that identity is solely determined by our genes. But this type
of genetic determinism is clearly false. Though genes influence our personal
development, so does the complex and irreproducible context in which our lives take
place. We know this from studying monozygotic twins. Notwithstanding, the fact that
such twins are genetically identical to each other and, therefore, sometimes look very
similar and often share many character traits, habits and preferences, they are different
individuals, with different identities (Segal, 1999). Cloning a deceased child would
not produce an identical child, but a different child, just as ‘standard’ reproduction
does. A saviour sibling: A further possible motivation for engaging in cloning is to
create a child who could act as a tissue donor for a sick sibling. For example, if a child
has a blood disease, the treatment of which requires a hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation, stem cells from the umbilical cord blood collected after the birth of
the younger clone could be used for transplantation to the progenitor. The creation of
such ‘saviour siblings’ is already permitted using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis
and IVF. Cloning could potentially be a more effective method for producing children
who are saviour siblings. In sum, cloning could significantly expand our procreative
options. The two clearest motivations for using cloning will be as a cure for infertility
and to create saviour siblings. As we already allow people to access reproductive
technologies for these purposes, these appear to be justified reasons for allowing
people to access cloning techniques. An argument is owed for why producing children
through cloning is more unethical than using other reproductive technologies (or
standard sexual reproduction).

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 49 of 54
Arguments against cloning

Cloning is Unnatural: That cloning is unnatural and therefore wrong is one of the most
often heard arguments against cloning (see, for example, The President’s Council on
Bioethics, 2002, chapter 5) but also one of the least convincing. To say that something
is ‘unnatural’ can be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps the most obvious sense in
which cloning is unnatural is that it is artificial – it is the product of purposeful human
activity. It seems implausible; however, that all that is artificial is bad as this implies
that all medicine is bad. Another sense in which cloning is unnatural is that it is
unusual. It is not what we normally do. But why would the ‘unusualness’ of
something make it wrong? Many new technologies are unusual. We do not generally
think that this provides a good reason not to develop or use them. To determine
whether we should develop or use new unusual technologies, we typically look at the
expected consequences of doing so. Cloning threatens autonomy: Many fears that
cloning threatens the autonomy of a child, by locking them into particular futures.
This may be bad in itself or bad because it might reduce the clone’s wellbeing. In its
report ‘Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry’, the President’s
Council on Bioethics (2002) wrote that being genetically unique is “an emblem of
independence and individuality” and allows us to go forward “with a relatively
indeterminate future in front of us” (Chapter five, section c). Such concerns have
formed the basis of strong opposition to cloning. As discussed above, the concern that
a clone’s identity and individuality is threatened relies on the mistaken belief that who
and what we become is entirely determined by our genes. Sharing the same genome
with another organism does not threaten identity, and monozygotic twins are proof of
this. Furthermore, it is not clear how cloning threatens an agent’s autonomy in a more
significant way than normal reproduction. Each child is somewhat limited in the life
plans they can pursue because of their genes; cloned or not. As long as an equivalent
number of life plans are open to a clone as there are to a normal child, and clones are
not coerced into pursuing particular life plans, they can live just as autonomously as
normal children. The clone will be treated as a means: Cloning arouses people’s
imagination about the clone, but also about those who will choose to have a child
through cloning. Often dubious motives are ascribed to them: they would want a child
O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 50 of 54
that is ‘just like so-andso’ causing people to view them as objects or as commodities
like a new car or a new house (see, for example, Putnam, 1997, pp. 7-8). They would
want an attractive child (a clone of Scarlett Johansson) or a child with tennis talent (a
clone of Serena Williams) purely to show off. Dictators would want armies of clones
to achieve their political goals. People would clone themselves out of vanity. Parents
would clone their existing child so that the clone can serve as an organ bank for that
child. The conclusion is then that cloning is wrong because the clone will be used as a
mere means to others’ ends.

Complex family relationships: Another concern is that cloning threatens traditional

family structures. Similar fears have been echoed in debates about homosexuals
adopting children, IVF and other assisted reproduction techniques. But cloning may
present unique problems by blurring generational boundaries. A clone does not have
genetic parents in the traditional sense and this may alter family structures. However,
it is not clear that generational blurring would lead to a cloned child being more
confused about his family ties than some children are now.

CONCLUSION

All things considered, whether or not cloning is permissible depends on the weight of
the reasons for doing it, and the weight of the reasons against doing it. We have
argued that there are cases in which individuals may be justified in using cloning
technologies as a means for reproduction, especially when this is the only way to
create a child who is genetically related to the donor, or to produce a child to act as a
saviour sibling. Furthermore, the arguments adduced against cloning do not provide
strong reasons to believe these specific uses of cloning technologies would be
unethical.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 51 of 54
REFERENCES/FURTHER READING

Ahlberg J, Brighouse H (2011). An Argument against Cloning. Canadian Journal of

Philosophy 40(4): 539–566.

Bartholet, E. (1999). Family Bonds: Adoption, Infertility, and the New World of Child
Production. Boston: Beacon Press.

Brock DW (1998). Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro
and Con. In: Nussbaum MC and Sunstein CR (eds.) Facts and Fantasies about Human
Cloning, pp.141–164. New York: Norton.

Buchanan A, Brock DW, Daniels N and Wikler D (2000). From Chance to Choice:
Genetics & Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dasaolu, B. O. (2004). "Artificial Human Creation: An Examination of the Cleavage

between Theology and Science." Journal of Philosophy and Culture, 1 (1).

Dasaolu, B. O. (2008). From Home to the Laboratory: An Ethical Assessment of a

New Reproductive Technology,

DRUMSPEAK: International Journal of Research in The Humanities,1 (1).

Dasaolu, B. O. (2011). "The Idea of Human Cloning in Contemporary Times: Fears

and Prospects." Journal of Philosophy and Development, 12 (1 & 2).

Dasaolu, B. O. (2018). "The Techno-Moral Case against Cloning: How Martin

Heidegger Justifies the Kantian," Philosophia: E-Journal for Philosophy and Culture.
19 (1)

Devolder K (2013) Cloning. In Zalta EN (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition),

URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/cloning/>.

Fawcett JT, Arnold FS (1973). The Value of Children: Theory and Method.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 4(3):23-25

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 52 of 54
Feinberg J (1980). “A Child's Right to an Open Future”. in Aiken W (ed.) Whose
Child? Parental Rights, Parental Authority and State Power, pp.124–153. Totowa, NJ:
Rowman & Littlefield.

Harris J (1997). “Goodbye Dolly: The Ethics of Human Cloning. Journal of Medical
Ethics 23(6): 353- 360.

Harris J (2004) On Cloning. London: Routledge Jones D (24 April 2009). Clones,
cowboys and resurrecting the dead. Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/24/religion-ethics-cloning-
embryos

Kass LR (1998). The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning Of
Humans. Valparaiso University Law Review 32(2): 679–705.

Levick SE (2004). Clone Being: Exploring the Psychological and Social Dimensions.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Levy N, Lotz M (2005). Reproductive Cloning and a (kind of) Genetic Fallacy.
Bioethics, 19(3): 232–250

New York Times (10 June 1997). Clinton Seeks to Ban Human Cloning but Not All
Experiments. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/10/science/clinton-
seeksto- ban-human-cloning-but-not-all-experiments.html.

O’Neil O (2002). Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Gifford Lectures 2001).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pence G (1998). Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.

Putnam H (1997). “Cloning People”, in J. Burley (ed.), The Genetic Revolution and
Human Rights, pp 1-13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 53 of 54
Sandel MJ (2007). The Case against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic
Engineering. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Savulescu J (1999). Should we Clone Human Beings? Cloning as a Source of Tissue

Transplantation. Journal of Medical Ethics 25: 87–95.

Segal NL (1999). Entwined Lives: Twins and what they tell us about Human
Behavior. New York: Plume.

The President’s Council on Bioethics (2002). Human Cloning and Human Dignity:
An Ethical Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: The President’s Council on Bioethics.

________________________________________________

O.K. 2022, Lecture notes on Ethics and Emerging Ethical Issues Page 54 of 54