Joy Zeynoun-201600602
1- Topic: McMahan contends that killing embryos in order to extract stem cells is morally justifiable. How does McMahan argue that we are not human organisms? How does this lead him to his conclusion? Either argue against his view or defend it against possible criticisms. Focus on one argument.

In this paper I will first present the argument that we are not essentially human organisms that McMahan puts forward with regard to killing embryos for stem cell research. Then, I will raise the problem that we cannot be reduced to memories and beliefs and finally prove that it still a sound argument. The argument that Mcmahan is challenging in his excerpt “Killing Embryos for Stem Cell Research” is as follows:
One can argue …show more content…
His first argument is a thought experiment of brain transplantation and the idea behind it is basically the following: “Suppose that you and your identical twin are both involved in a terrible accident. Your brain is undamaged, but the rest of your body is so badly injured as to be moribund. Your identical twin’s brain has been destroyed, but the rest of his or her body is undamaged. Exploiting new techniques that enable the proper neural connections to be made between your brain and your twin’s body, your surgeons remove your twin’s dead brain and transplant your perfectly functional brain in its place.” (Mcmahan, page 110). He claims that intuitively we think that it is my brain and my twins body so this would result in me as the outcome, because I will have all my memories, past experiences, inclinations to act in a specific way, my dispositions and character traits all of those things are going to be in the new entity that is created and because it is in my identical twin I will kind of look the same. We have one entity at the end so it is clear that one of the two has died. But since most experiences, behaviors, ways of thinking, dispositions, previous knowledge, beliefs, memories and ways of reasoning are going to do with me since it is my brain it seems that the outcome is likely me. If we are actually human organisms and not more than human organism, then it would …show more content…
It is much more than that since our memories, beliefs, and desires changes. It is our physical properties that must define us and not the conscious thinking part of our brain. Moreover, others argue in relation to the conjoined twins example, that when asserting as a foundation that every twin has her separate mental life is to assume the point at issue, specifically that there are two people. In defense of McMahan’s argument in relation to the brain transplant, consider a man that is now 40 years old, although as he grows up he does not have the same memories and intentions as he did when he was 10, this does not make him someone else, since at every point in time there was a connection and overlap between his memories, beliefs and desires. Moreover, even some of his past has remained and he has carried it up to the age of 35, (For example, remembering a close friend who died or had an accident), and since no one else has this psychological data and link to the past it becomes significant. There is something constant that is remaining from the past although it is not clear what this something is. Moreover, we are often accused as “not acting ourselves” this clearly reflects how we intuitively define our natural selves as being linked to our behaviors, experiences and ways of thinking and not to the “organism”.