Never Let Me Go introduced a lot of issues that, although fictional, seem to strike home with me as being important in determining where our own world is heading and how we see the world around us. To some, it may seem far-fetched to imagine generations of human clones but in reality modern science is only a few steps away from being capable of actually creating human clones. In fact, the science is probably already in place. There is a moral divide on whether this actually acceptable. The ethics of cloning in general, especially humans, is something I certainly think Kazuo Ishiguro was targeting when he wrote this book. More specifically, and what I would like to continue discussing next week, is how do we as a society view things as “human” and “non-human” and how does that effect “us,” “them,” and “it.”
As I read the book I was disturbed to see how the “humans” in the story were treating the “clones.” I felt bothered by this because to me the clones within this story were still very much human. Just because they were not procreated does not mean that they are not human (at least in my opinion). Therefore, it is murder and absolutely inexcusable to raise “human clones” to slaughter for the benefits of previously living humans. The clones were capable of learning, socializing, and loving. The clones could do anything, with the exception of reproducing, that anyone else can do. To me, this one of “us” killing another of “us.” I feel like that is the ultimate moral question for issues such as cloning and abortion in our world. When is a clone a human? If it is unacceptable to clone humans, then why animals? When is a fetus a human? If the clones are not “human” as they are treated within the book, why are they treated so humanely (i.e going to school)? I think these are all questions we have to think about before we make judgment calls on issues like this in real world situations.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you when you said, “Therefore, it is murder and absolutely inexcusable to raise “human clones” to slaughter for the benefits of previously living humans. The clones were capable of learning, socializing, and loving.” To me, in order to be human you need to be able to learn and feel emotions. The clones in this story exhibit both behaviors and earn the right to be called human beings. Ruth loved Tom. Love is an emotion. Kathy felt sad when losing her cassette tape. Sadness is an emotion. Kathy and Ruth were worried that someone was going to kidnap Miss Geraldine. Worrying is an emotion. The clones obviously had the ability to learn because they went to school for many years in order to learn how to live life outside of the school. Also, Kathy wouldn’t have been able to be a carer if she was unable to learn. She had to learn how to properly take care of donors. The way the clones are thought of as nonhuman is ridiculous since they have exactly the same capabilities as “normal” humans.
ReplyDeletemany believe that we humans differ from animals because we are aware of our own mortality. The donors lacked a clear sense of their own mortality. I could see how that, with the impossibility of bearing children would make it easier for the normals to disregard all other similarities they share with the donors.
ReplyDeleteI think this would bring up an interesting conversation. I would agree that many of the clones had similar qualities as a human owns, but donors seemed to lack emotion, specifically when someone died. I really like the issue of cloning, especially comparing it to passages from the book. I think it would make a drastic change of us, them, and it.
ReplyDelete