But though we believe ourselves to be seeking happiness in marriage, it isn’t that simple. What we really seek is familiarity — which may well complicate any plans we might have had for happiness. We are looking to recreate, within our adult relationships, the feelings we knew so well in childhood. The love most of us will have tasted early on was often confused with other, more destructive dynamics: feelings of wanting to help an adult who was out of control, of being deprived of a parent’s warmth or scared of his anger, of not feeling secure enough to communicate our wishes. How logical, then, that we should as grown-ups find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right — too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable — given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy.
All that aside...If scientists continue this experimenting, they will start cloning human beings, and if that information for doing this gets out to the wrong people, crimes such as kidnapping to clone people would scare us all to leave our houses in the morning. Think about it. If anyone got a hold of our DNA, they could use it to clone us and steal our identity. Maybe I'm just thinking way too far out of the box, but it is possible, right?
Think carefully what this conflict and what the possession of unlimited power in plainest matter of fact means. If I win, I can deal with you and yours as I please; you are my creature, my subject for experiment, my plastic material, to which I shall give any shape that I please; if you win, you in the same way can deal with me and mine, just as you please; I am your political plaything, “your chattel, your anything.” Ought we to wonder that, with so vast a stake flung down on the table, even good men forget and disregard all the restraints of their higher nature, and in the excitement of the great game become utterly unscrupulous? There are grim stories of men who have staked body and soul in the madness of their play; are we after all so much unlike them—we gamesters of the political table—staking all rights, all liberties, and the very ownership of ourselves? And what results, what must result from our consenting to enter into this reckless soul-destroying conflict for power over each other? Will there not necessarily be the ever-present the haunting, the maddening dread of how I shall deal with you if I win; and how you will deal with me if you win? That dread of each other, vague and undefined, yet very real, is perhaps the worst of all the counselors that men can admit to their hearts. A man who fears, no longer guides and controls himself; right and wrong become shadowy and indifferent to him; the grim phantom drives, and he betakes himself to the path—whatever it is—that seems to offer the best chance of safety. We see the same vague dread acting upon the nations. At times you may have an aggressive and ambitious government, planning a world policy for its own aggrandizement, that endangers the peace of all other nations; but in most cases it is the vague dread of what some other rival nation will do with its power that slowly leads up to those disastrous and desolating international conflicts. So it is with our political parties. We live dreading each other, and become the reckless slaves of that dread, losing conscience, losing guidance and definite purpose, in our desperate effort to escape from falling under the subjection of those whose thoughts and beliefs and aims are all opposed to our own. True it is that the leaders of a party may have their own higher desires, their own personal sense of right, but it is a higher desire and sense of right which they must often with a sigh—or without a sigh—put away into their pockets, bowing themselves before the ever-present necessity of winning the conflict and saving their own party from defeat. The stake is too great to allow room for scruples, or the more delicate balancings of what is right and wrong in itself.
Now, whether you judge that I acted rightly or wrongly in thus yielding myself to Mr. Spencer's influence, you will not, I think, quarrel very seriously with me, if I say that between Mr. Spencer's mind and the mind of the politician there lies the deepest of all gulfs; and that there is no region of human thought which is so disorderly, so confused, so lawless, so little under the rule of the great principles, as the region of political thought. It must be so, because that disorder and confusion are the inevitable consequence and penalty of the strife for power. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot devote yourself to the winning of power, and remain faithful to the great principles. The great principles, and the tactics of the political campaign, can never be made one, never be reconciled. In that region of mental and moral disorder, which we call political life, men must shape their thoughts and actions according to the circumstances of the hour, and in obedience to the tyrant necessity of defeating their rivals. When you strive for power, you may form a temporary, fleeting alliance with the great principles, if they happen to serve your purpose of the moment, but the hour soon comes, as the great conflict enters a new phase, when they will not only cease to be serviceable to you, but are likely to prove highly inconvenient and embarrassing. If you really mean to have and to hold power, you must sit lightly in your saddle, and make and remake your principles with the needs of each new day; for you are as much under the necessity of pleasing and attracting, as those who gain their livelihood in the street.
And here, perhaps, I ought to add a few words. While we lay the heaviest share of blame upon the political system that takes possession of us, and leaves little room for self-guidance, are we to lay no direct blame upon ourselves, for being content to take our place in the system, that few, I think, in calm moments of reflection, can fully justify to their own hearts? Let us be completely frank in this great matter. Is the system of giving away power over ourselves, or seeking to possess it over others, in itself right or wrong? If it is wrong, don't let us make excuses for acquiescing in it; don't let us sigh and feebly wring our hands, confessing the faults and dangers, but pleading that we see no other way before us. Where there is a bad way, there is also a good way, if men once resolutely set themselves to find it.
But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just aswrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than bothof them put together."The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong"are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely rightis totally and equally wrong.
In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absoluterights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong,the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and ahollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.
i think cloning is wrong because ... people were made only once and its wrong to clone others or any kind of organism and to me it makes them look like a god or something!! also thanks for this info i need it for an essay!
Cloning has so many benefits, more than negative ones, and also stronger ones. The only reasons that a properly cloned human would be discriminated against are because a large group of people prefer to only accept and take in what's normal to them. What's normal is only a point of view. In Nazi Germany, anti-semetism was normal, because most people were anti-semetic, but that doesn't make it right. The belief that God created everything, and that he created man in his image, surely that means that he made us to be like him? Life is full of hints, and it just takes a lttle common sense to see them. Before the Noah's Ark, Adam's direct descendents didn't see the hints that they were to be good to everyone and that it brings everyone happiness. If they had accepted eachother in the first place, they wouldn't have all died. Back to the 'man in God's image' point, it basically means that humanity will inevitably endeavour to create things, and make them work well, and to seek betterment for everyone. For this last point to happen, people need ambition. However, the 'normal' people constantly attack ideas that could change things. Christianity is one of the oldest religions, yet science is even older. All the miracles I can think of that have been performed can be re-enacted by science. I don't mean anything nasty toward religion now, I am simply finding loopholes which any open minded person would consider looking through and then see the real light, not this edited version of what Jesus might have spoken that most the anti-cloning people happen to believe. The truth is, cloning doesn't contradict religion, and it is beneficial toward everyone so long as it is kept within boundaries, such as producing super armies, and so long as it's used for good. Remember, it was christianity that kept us in the dark ages. If they didn't happen, because everything science like was considered witchcraft, the world would technologicaly 800 years ahead of where we are now. Space. Most likely intergalactic travel. Cloning without any hitches, surgery to go with it that could repair any damage done, much longer lives due to genetic engineering, and we would have enough space to sustain ourselves and be brave and explorers again. Back to this mundane level of cloning where people are saying ' NOOOO lets NOT clone because we'll be racist to what comes out' and 'od doesn't want people to be the same.' Natural selection clearly points out that the creatures with the best genes will survive in the end, and that life tries to turn out an animal with the best genes. Human evolution is destined to create a race where we are all interbreeding, and the best of what is made survives, so humanity is destined to all end up clones of eachother. And there are no problems anywhere to do with therapeutic cloning (cloning tissues, organs) that can't be solved by simply comparing the very large side of benefits, long and short term, with the superficial side that it's 'just wrong.' Science is right, and so long as people that have been subdued by the illusion of normality don't become leaders in it, it won't collapse. Besides, most the bad hype about cloning comes froms films where film-makers have created holes in it, twisting the ideals to create problems that would only exist in a twisted world, to entice people into watching it. Stem cells aren't people, foetuses don't have enough synapses to even come close to being conscious or having a personality, (besides the genes which will negate their natural dispositions) and abortion is wrong only unless all morally positive options have been exhausted, and that the abortion will benefit everyone in the long term. A baby born to a 14 year old would certainly not receive the correct up bringing to turn out as one of the best of humanity. I would like to see any argument I couldn't win that isn't against some blind fanatic who believes only the religion that they've been fed from a child.
I am totally with you on that fact that God is not an option and that things did not just happen by chance. How I like to think of it is like the Washington Memorial. Think, did it just apear there from nothing? No, of course not! If you said that in today's society people would think you had gone mad. That building was MADE. It was made with a purpose, and with creative thinking and a plan already set out before anyone started working on it. Thus is the same case with the Earth, and in the begining of time God had created all the Earth and it's contents, including every animal. They were put on Earth for a reason, they didn't have some random mutation that caused them evolve into what they are. That is just one of many excuses to how the Earth was made by people who refuse to believe that God is real and what all He did for us. God made us all individuals, and scientists have no right to play God as a human, of whom God had created. keep in mind that, also, God is letting them do this. Nothing is out of His control, and if He wanted to stop them He would. So, I am against this because I feel it is wrong. And so the war continues, between right and wrong, the truth and the lies, and between what people want to believe and what is facts. Guess how many people will argue? A lot! But the truth is the truth, and nothing else. :)