I think this topic of art and creativity dealing with robots or clones is a very interesting one. Why is it so bad for robot and or clone to have soul or to have feelings. I think that the fact that human build or make them and teach them it is only nature that some will have feeling and be creative. All though I do see where is becomes problematic because if your robot had a soul that would be sort of like keeping a slave, but as long as they stay just hardware it fine. Then I do have a question when it comes to clones like those in never let me go What does it mean that we use them just to stay alive when they are capable of everything that a human does. In fact they are human they are just raised to act and think they what that they do so what would we call this? would it be murder? or just killing for scientific gain?
Filed under: post |
Passing 1 
I think you bring up an interesting point about Never Let Me Go that the film illustrates in an unique way. For me, I personally felt that the clones were just like any other human, so the fact that they were raised for solely for organ donation seemed very unsettling for me. In my interpretation of the film, I got the feeling that these practices were wrong. I think that part of the reason the distinction between clone and human was made in the film was that people were more willing to accept what was being done to the clones, if they were not considered human, which some people in the film linked souls to humanity. I think ultimately the difference you are asking about in the last two questions comes down to, if something/someone is labeled human. I feel that this is based on this simple distinction, regardless of whether or not the act is really right. I felt that in Never Let Me Go, since I thought they were humans, that it was an accepted practice to use people for organ donation.