배아복제논의에있어서단정적태도와 오류가능성인정태도 1) 유호종 * (ethics) (bioethics),,,........ (1) (2) (3) (4).. *,,
226 I. 서론.. 2004,.. 2004,.,,,. 1). 3 1) (Nature, Vol. 429(2004 ) www.nature.com).
227. 2004 11 19..,.. 2)..,... 2), 0% 0.0001%. 0.0001%. (http://db1.chosun.com/cgi-bin/ maga).
228... 3)..,,.,.... 3)....
229............
230 II. 배아의도덕적지위논의의성격. 4),,........,,. a A' A'' A''' 4).. 2003; 60 : 177-179
231. a b, a b. a A' A'' b B' B'' B'''. 5),,......... 5) S. Buckle (the potential to become) (the potential to produce),,. (Buckle, S. Arguing from Potential. Singer, P. Embryo experimentation Cambridge. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990: 93-96 )
232. 14,.... 14 1 1. N.M. Ford 14. 6). * > a o * > b o a b. b a a b. o a, b. a b *. 6).. 1997; : 103.
233.. 7). 14,.. * o(a) > a * > b o b a 14,?..., 7)... ( ). 2004: 40.
234...,,,,....,,. 8). 8).,., 2003: 26-27.
235...... III. 배아의도덕적지위에대한단정적태도.......
236...............
237.........,....
238..... 9).,.,.,,.,.. 9).., 1998: 106-107.
239 IV. 배아의도덕적지위에대한오류가능성인정태도...,,, (I. Kant)....
240........... (a). (b),. (b) (a)..
241 (c),. (d),. (a), (b), (c), (d),,.....,..,
242....,.... 10).. ( ). 10). : 26.
243..,,.,...,......,.
244.. 2002 80%. 11) 77% 12) 80.8%. 13) 6.8%, 44.7% 11.8%. 14) 2005 7 1,000 90.9% 7.6% 29.2% 67.4%. 15) 11) 2000 12 11. 12). : 58-59. 13).., 2004: 25. 14). :.., 2002: 276. 15) 2005 7 20 http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news.
245. 24%, 30% 54%. 16)...... 16), : 279. 71% 49%.
246.... 17).,..,.... 17)... 2001; 68(1).
247....... 18). 18). -.. 6 -, 2003: 10-11.
248...........
249... V. 결론.....,.
250..
251 참고문헌 (2003), -,, 6 -. (2001), 14, 15. (2003),,, 60. (1998),,. (1997),,, 1997. (2000), 14, 14,. (2002), :,,. (2004),,. (2003),,,. (2001),,,, 68 1. (2004),,,. Buckle, S. Arguing from Potential In Embryo Experimentation. Kuhse, H. & P. Singer Introduction: The nature of ethical argument in Embryo Experimentation. Lockwood, M. Hare on Potentiality: A Rejoinder in Contingent
252 Future Persons: on the ethics of deciding who will live, or not, in the future (Nick Fotion and Jan C. Heller. ed, Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, c1997). Mulkay, M.J., The Embryo Research Debate: science and the politics of reproduction, Cambridge University Press 1997. Singer, P. & K Dawson IVF technology and the argument from potential in Embryo Experimentation. Singer, P. Embryo experimentation, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Sutton, A., Is the Human Embryo Our Netghbour? in Ethics & Medicine: a Christian perspective on issues in bioethics. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2000.
253 ABSTRACT Dogmatic Attitude and the Attitude Recognizing the Potential for Error in the Debate of Embryo Cloning You, Hojong Should embryo cloning be permitted? Current discussions about this issue has been focused on examining the moral status of the embryo. However, through past debates it becomes clear that the moral status of an embryo cannot be establish objectively. This leads us to conclude that it is meaningless to prove the moral status of an embryo to persuade those who have different views about embryo cloning. In such situation, there are some who dogmatically assert their views about the moral status of an embryo. They further affirm their views of embryo cloning on the basis of those dogmatic views. But, such approach cannot be persuasive but rather brings about conflict. Therefore we must start by accepting the fact that our views of moral status can be incorrect. When we accept this possibility, there are four ways to decide whether or not to permit embryo cloning. They are, 1) to accept the view that would bring about the most desirable results, 2) to follow the views of the majority, 3) to accept eclecticism, 4) to decide from the view of pluralism. I investigate these four ways and their
254 implications on embryo cloning. Keywords: embryo cloning, moral status, moral attitude, critical self-reflection 19) : 2005. 9. 22 / : 2005. 10. 25