tance of att it udes.

Dev oid of self ish mo tives and done with the gene ral
good in mind even ap par ently in ju ri ous ac tions have no moral re- perc uss ions.
Self ish mo tives can give even seem ingly al tru is tic ac tions a mor ally neg a- tive
charge. The jus ti f ca tion for clon ing and re lated is sues of bioethical con cern
must theref ore be sought not in the spec if ics of these pro cesses, but in the mot
ives that imp el us to choose them. It is up to the conc erned in di vid ua ls to be
clear about their mot ives, and for so ci ety to e erc ise con trol when the mot ives
of its mem - bers go astray. !n ac cu rate un der stand ing of the sci en - tifc facts
is, for sure, nec ess ary to clear mis - con cept ions and prej ud ices be fore one can
ar - rive at a sound eth i cal judge ment" but deeper ethi c al iss ues may prove
more int ract ab le. In ter na tional or ga ni #a tions li$e the %&'S() have been hold
ing wide-rang ing con sul ta- tions to for mu late norms and pol i cies to regu - late
biot echn olo gy. Swami *itatman andaj i+s pres ent at ion of the ,indu view of eth ics
-the con clud ing por tion of which ap pears in this is - sue. was a part of this pro
cess. There are also strict int ern at ional leg al norms -ee mp lif ied by the
&uremberg (ode. for con duct ing bi o - log i cal res earch. These aim to prev ent a
rep eat of the une thi cal and in hum an use of men and women as subj ects of bio l
ogi c al res earch in &a#i /erm any. 0ut there are few ins trum ents to reg u late the
e1 ui ta ble dis tri bu tion of the fruits of re search. Ther a peu tic cloning prom ises
a whole
range of rem ed ies for pres ently in cur able con - di tions. 0ut whether these will
be availa ble to the vil lages around 2ayavati or the bushmen in !f rica, and at what
cost, is the big 1ues tion. ! free-mar $et econ omy al lows few eth i cal chec$s on
prici ng and avail abil ity. In soc i eti es where wel fare mea sures are in ad e 1uate
and bud get ary allocations for health in sub stan tial -as is the case in In dia., costly
and in ap pro pri- ate techn ol o gies can prove a big burd en. The pres ence of gross
socio-eco nomic dis par i ties can, there fore, of ten rend er plain bi o log i cal views
of eth ics re dun dant. In fact, un der such con di tions, 3bi o log i cal ar gu ments
can triviali#e eth ics and dis tract our att ent ion from real moral is sues4 the ways in
which the ge netic po ten tial of hu mans borninto imp ov- er ished en vi ron ments
to day is stunted and thwarted+. !s 5eon 'isenberg of ,ar vard 2ed i cal School has
rightly ob served, 3had we the moral com mit ment to pro vide ev ery child with
whatwe de sire for our own, what a 6ow - eri ng of hu man $ind there wouldbe.+
7eferences 8. Shan$aracharya+s com men tary on 0rihadaran- ya$a %panishad,
9.9.:. ;. The (omp lete <or$s of Swami =ive$ananda, > vols. -(al cutta4 !dvaita
!shrama, 8-?, 8>?>" >, 8>>@., 8A:. :. Shan$aracharya+s com men tary on 0rahma
Sutras, :.8.;;. 9. 0rahma Sutras, :.8.;9. B. !itareya %panishad ;.8.;. C.
0rihadaranya$a %panishad, :.>.;?.9-B.
8@ D0 -2!7(, ;AAB
0ioethics and (loning 8B8
The goal of all nat ure is freed om, and freed om is to be att ained only by perf ect
uns elf shn ess" eve ry thought, word, or deed that is un self sh ta$es us tow ards
the goal, and, as such, is called moral. That def n it ion, you will fnd, holds good in
eve ry rel ig ion and eve ry syst em of eth- ics. ESwami =ive$ananda !ct only on
that maim -or princ ip le. which you can at the same time will to bec ome a univ er-
sal law. EImmanuel Fant