Day 2 InstructionsWelcome to Day 2 of the Midterm Exam. Belo…
Day 2 InstructionsWelcome to Day 2 of the Midterm Exam. Below you will find the full text of what you wrote on Day 1. You may copy and paste from it freely as you continue working.Your Day 2 submission is what will be graded. Use this session to:Continue writing where you left off.Revise, restructure, or strengthen your argument.Add engagement with sources you did not address on Day 1.Develop your response to objections more fully.Reminder: Your essay should be 800–1,500 words. All original exam instructions and constraints still apply. Day 2 Wrinkle: “The corporation’s legal team notes that your essay frequently describes the clones as ‘their own agents with their own moral obligations.’ They argue this violates the Forbidden Case Constraint. As you revise, restate your strongest objection in a way that works entirely within the reductionist framework, without treating the clones as independent persons, and explain why it still succeeds.” Your Day 1 Writing: Lunar Industries efforts to revise the protocol and inform each clone of the full truth does not change the fact that this arrangement is morally wrong. In the film, it is known that the only Sam Bell that was fully aware of the entire project was the original. The clones were not aware of the operation and their role as a clone. Each one was deceived and under the guise that they were going to work on the moon for 3 years then return home. This seemed to have worked for many years until one clone decided to return to the crash site where the previous clone “died.” Despite the operation’s success for many years without error, each clone was “suffering” due to a fabricated reality; with or without their knowledge.Siderits argues that the “self” is not fixed, which breaks moral concern with all persons. It would be accurate to say that Siderits would agree that the original Sam Bell is not a “fixed” Sam, despite being the original. He would say, however, that each individual Sam carry similar skandhas . The clones would not necessarily be the “same” as the original Sam Bell, but they all carry very similar qualities. As for Parfit’s perspective, each clone is their own identity, or agent, but they all have the same personality, memories, and intentions as the original Sam. This is due to Relation R, or their shared psychological connectedness. The idea of “cloning” an individual would not copy and paste their soul or spirit, but the existing memories and intentions from the original would carry on to the others. A great example of this would be two candles being lit by the first candle, which was lit with a lighter. All three candles carry a flame that physically looks similar and intentionally burns similarly. Would it be accurate to say that the candle lit by a lighter is different from the second and third candle being lit by the first? The flame is not entirely the “same” but the it’s process is split off into three connectedness processes, continuing on the entity.In this arrangement, Siderits’ Doctrine of No-Self would imply that each Sam Bell being deceived, and/or harmed, would be the same as harming your future self since there is no real, true self. If this experiment were to ethically cater to the original Sam, it would be natural to ethically cater to the clones as well. They would not be recognized as the exact same person as Sam Bell Prime but deception and suffering is still morally wrong nonetheless. Parfit’s Relation R would also argue that the clones are not the same to the original Sam Bell but they are still in fact psychologically connected through the past memories that all clones share.Now, with the modified scenario it is stated that each clone will be fully informed of the arrangement, who they are, and why they must proceed through the operation. However, “If it refuses, it is painlessly euthanized and a new clone is activated. Sam Bell Prime has consented to this revised protocol.” Is this modified scenario any different from the original arrangement? If the clones are not aware of who they are, how can they make meaningful decisions. If the clones are fully aware of who they are, why would their decision not matter the same as the original’s decision? The only difference now is that each clone isn’t being deceived of their fabricated reality but now informed of the truth and in some way made to feel that they do not have a “choice” in continuing or not. Either way, their cloned-life will be terminated. If Parfit’s Relation R is accepted as truth, would this modification consider euthanizing the original Sam Bell just as the clones would? Clone or not, an agent is receiving pain and harm – which a majority of opinions can agree that any person receiving harm is morally and ethically wrong. The original same is not defined as the ultimate basis, as Siderits would argue. As mentioned, he is not a fixed self therefore each individual Sam Bell become their own agent with their own moral obligations. From these perspectives, it would seem appropriate to say any reasonings to ethically care for the original Sam would therefore transition to the exact same reasonings to care for the clones as well.Having the first Sam Bell complete his 3-year mission on the moon and returning home does not label him as more important or better than his clones. Each cloned version become their own self and being painlessly euthanized may not cause any real affect on Earth, however; the clones do experience pain and do suffer from the actions of their original self. That alone is not permissible. If somehow the clones could feel nothing and not care of their role, this fixed arrangement would probably not ethically matter. Despite that, each carry memories and intentions that the original has and Relation R in that matter cannot be separated nor broken.