Michie 1

Elizabeth Michie
B3
Freestone
November 8, 2014

Rhetorical Analysis of The Moral Clone

Life can be defined in a hundred different ways based on all walks of
life. The definition will be different if it is coming from a scientist or a
philosopher, a mother or a doctor. It is important to keep in mind these
perspectives and biases when researching cloning. One perspective on
cloning is given by Kenan Malik in his paper The Moral Clone. Malik uses
many rhetoric tools in order to persuade anyone who reads his paper that
cloning is not immoral. He appeals mostly in a logical way; however, he uses
emotional and ethical appeals as well to persuade almost any reader of his
position.
Malik uses logos to present his argument to the reader. This logical
appeal is used to persuade the reader into assuming that his argument is
just and correct. Malik uses many comparisons and a series of logical steps
to explain why he believes cloning is moral. An example of this is in
paragraph ten of his paper where he takes the reader through his logic of
comparing IVF technology to cloning. This is almost like an equation in saying
that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. He tries to reason with the reader in saying
that generally, IVF is viewed as moral throughout society and that since IVF

Michie 2
has similar results to cloning, that cloning is a moral thing. Another example
of using logos is when he says, Cloning is certainly unnatural. But then so is
virtually every human activityfrom taking aspirin to heart surgery. If we
were to look upon human conception as simply a gift from God, then
contraception, abortion, and IVF would all have to be ruled immoral
(paragraph 12). Again he is using a series of logical thoughts that appeals to
the readers sense of reason. It is this use of logos combined with other
rhetoric tools that convince the reader of Maliks argument.
Another rhetoric tool that Malik uses is pathos, or appeal to emotion.
Throughout his paper, Malik portrays opposing arguments as inferior or
immoral to evoke emotional reactions from the reader. An example of this is
when he says, there is something morally repugnant about the campaign
against cloning. By preventing cloning research, opponents are helping to
prevent the development of new medical treatments that draw upon cloning
techniques, and hence allowing many people to suffer unnecessarily
(paragraph 15). This is a very intentional use of pathos to shock the reader
and make them believe that if they support what Malik portrays as the wrong
side, they could potentially be hurting countless other people. Another way
that pathos is used repeatedly and intentionally is Maliks word choice. He
uses words that elicit strong emotional responses from the reader,
depending on the connotation of the words. An example of his word choice is
in his last paragraph when he says, it is about time that we stop indulging
theologians and Luddites in the absurd myth that they occupy the moral high

Michie 3
ground in the debate about cloning (paragraph 21). The words
theologians and Luddites make the reader feel that there are definite
sides to the views on cloning. The words absurd, myth, and moral high
ground make the reader feel that there is a view on morality and cloning
that is inferior to the other. Both of these devices are an effective use of
pathos to persuade the reader to believe Maliks argument.
Malik uses a set of ethics throughout his paper that appeal to a large
audience. These ethics are that human life is valuable and that it is in
societys best interest to help as many human beings as possible. These
ethics can generally be accepted. They can be used to persuade an audience
that cloning is not only moral, but will also benefit hundreds of people in
groundbreaking ways. An example of Maliks use of ethos is when he says,
what is moral about causing unnecessary suffering by creating obstacles to
medical advance? And what can be more ethical than attempting to alleviate
such suffering through the development of medical and scientific
techniques? (paragraph 21). He uses his basic ethics to argue that cloning
will help people and is moral. Using basic societal morals and opinions on
ethics, Malik is able to convince the reader that cloning is moral and that the
people against it are amoral.
Kenan Maliks paper The Moral Clone is a written argument that uses
rhetoric devices to convince the reader of his opinion. In this paper, a
combination of logos, pathos, and ethos accomplishes this. Malik uses logical

Michie 4
steps that appeal to the readers sense of reason. He uses pathos in
triggering feelings of inferiority in the reader through his comparisons of
morality and his word choice. Ethos is used in this paper to persuade by
assuming that the reader should better society. Malik strategically uses a
combination of all three rhetoric tools to convince the reader of his argument
on the morality of cloning.