题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
The ethical dilemmas of cloning has prevented it from further developing.
A．Right
B．Wrong
C．Not mentioned
安装简答题APP，拍照搜题省时又省心！
更多“The ethical dilemmas of clonin…”相关的问题
A、resolving ethical dilemmas
B、ethical reasoning
C、ethical relativism
D、applied ethics
A．probes
B．poses
C．exposes
D．deports
A、are common to the organization as a whole
B、are unique to their departmental responsibilities
C、are common to the industry
D、can be both unique to their departmental responsibilities and common to the organization as a whole
I suggest we think of ethics as analogous to language usage. There are no univocal rules of gram mar and style. which uniquely determine the best sentence for a particular situation. Nor is language usage universalizable. Although a sentence or phrase is warranted in one case, it does not mean it is automatically appropriate in like circumstances. Nonetheless, language usage is not subjective.
This should not surprise us in the least. All intellectual pursuits are relativistic in just these senses. Political science, psychology, chemistry, and physics are not certain, but they are not subjective either. As I see it, ethical inquiry proceeds like this: we are taught moral principles by parents, teachers, and society at large. As we grow older we become exposed to competing views. These may lead us to reevaluate presently held beliefs. Or we may find ourselves inexplicably making certain valuations, possibly because of inherited altruistic tendencies. We may "learn the hard way" that some actions generate unacceptable consequences. Or we may reflect upon our own and others' "theories" or pat terns of behavior. and decide they are inconsistent. The resulting views are "tested;" we act as we think we should and evaluate the consequences of those actions on ourselves and on others. We thereby correct our mistakes in light of the test of time.
Of course people make different moral judgments; of course we cannot resolve these differences by using some algorithm which is itself beyond judgment. We have no vantage point outside human experience where we can judge right and wrong, good and bad. But then we don't have a vantage point from where we can be philosophical relativists either.
We are left within the real world, trying to cope with ourselves, with each other, with the world, and with our own mistakes. We do not have all the moral answers; nor do we have an algorithm to discern those answers. Neither do we possess an algorithm for determining correct language usage but that does not make us throw up our hands in despair because we can no longer communicate.
If we understand ethics in this way, we can see, I think, the real value of ethical theory. Some people talk as if ethical theories give us moral prescriptions. They think we should apply ethical principles as we would a poultice: after diagnosing the illness, we apply the appropriate dressing. But that is a mistake. No theory provides a set of abstract solutions to apply straightforwardly. Ethical theories are important not because they solve all moral dilemmas but because they help us notice salient features of moral problems and help us understand those problems in context.
Ethics was generally considered to be
A．definite and clear.
B．vague and uncertain.
C．certain but non-rational.
D．relative but not subjective.
I suggest we think of ethics as analogous to language usage. There are no univocal rules of grammar and style. which uniquely determine the best sentence for a particular situation. Nor is language usage universalizable. Although a sentence or phrase is warranted in one case, it does not mean it is automatically appropriate in like circumstances. Nonetheless, language usage is not subjective.
This should not surprise us in the least. All intellectual pursuits are relativistic in just these senses. Political science, psychology, chemistry, and physics are not certain, but they are not subjective either. As I see it, ethnical inquiry proceeds like this: we are taught moral principles by parents, teachers, and society at large. As we grow older we become exposed to competing views. These may lead us to reevaluate presently held beliefs. Or we may find ourselves inexplicably making certain valuations, possibly because of inherited altruistic tendencies. We may "learn the hard way" that some actions generate unacceptable consequences. Or we may reflect upon our own and others' "theories" or patterns of behavior. and decide they are inconsistent. The resulting views are "tested"; we act as we think we should and evaluate the consequences of those actions on ourselves and on others. We thereby correct our mistakes in light of the test of time.
Of course people make different moral judgments; of course we cannot resolve these differences by using some algorithm which is itself beyond judgment. We have no vantage point outside human experience where we can judge right and wrong, good and bad. But then we don't have a vantage point from where we can be philosophical relativists either.
We are left within the real world, trying to cope with ourselves, with each other, with the world, and with our own fallibility. We do not have all the moral answers, nor do we have an algorithm to discern those answers, neither do we possess an algorithm for determining correct language usage but that does not make us throw up our hands in despair because we can no longer communicate.
If we understand ethics in this way, we can see, I think, the real value of ethical theory. Some people talk as if ethical theories give us moral prescriptions. They think we should apply ethical principles as we would a poultice: after diagnosing the ailment, we apply the appropriate dressing. But that is a mistake. No theory provides a set of abstract solutions to apply straightforwardly. Ethical theories are important not because they solve all moral dilemmas but because they help us notice salient features of moral problems and help us understand those problems in context.
Ethical principles are generally thought to be ______.
A．explicitly clear
B．implicitly vague
C．certain but non-rational
D．relative but not subjective
A laboratory experiment conducted last fall suggests it may someday be possible. For the first time ever, scientists made exact copies, or clones(克隆), of a human embryo.
Although the embryos grew for only six days, cloned embryos could theoretically be implanted in a woman's womb(子宫)and develop into normal babies. Or they could be frozen and implanted years later.
The scientists developed their cloning technique to make it easier for childless couples to have babies by in vitro(在体外的)fertilization. In this procedure, sperm(精子) from the man fertilizes an egg from the woman in a laboratory dish.
In most case, doctors must try implanting several embryos before one stays in the womb.Cloned embryos would give them many more embryos to implant.
But the technique could also be used for other purposes. Parents might freeze embryos cloned from their children so that they could be replaced if any of them died.The clones would also be ideal donors if the children needed organ transplants.
Another possibility: Childless couples could go to a bank of frozen embryos and choose a child just like one who's already living. Some people are concerned that these couples might pick only beautiful, successful children.
The ethical dilemmas(困境)of cloning have not yet been discussed fully because the public assumed it was a long way off. Many people are calling for(要求，提倡)controls on cloning immediately before the practice is abused.What do you think？
In an experiment conducted last autumn, scientists made exact copies of a human embryo for the first time.
A．Right
B．Wrong
C．Not mentioned
为了保护您的账号安全，请在“简答题”公众号进行验证，点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证，验证成功后方可继续查看答案！
微信搜一搜
简答题
微信搜一搜
简答题
如搜索结果不匹配，请 
