Question about the headmistress and clones having souls. - Never Let Me Go (2010) Discussion

[–] lojo414 13 years ago

1. I think Miss Emily was a sympathizer in that she was at least asking the question. But I don't think she could or would have done anything even if she had found any concrete evidence.The song the children sing in the beginning of the film,the school song, mentions watching them to see what they were like in their learning and play. On the trip to see the boat Tommy mentions that Hailsham has closed and most of the schools are now like battery farms, though he thinks this is an exageration. I think the schools being closed and the battery farming started because people were becoming too uncomfortable with just how human the clones actually were.In my opinion, Miss Emily would have been like a free range farmer. Her students/livestock were treated better than other clones from other schools but they would ultimately meet the same end. I'm not sure if her being in a wheelchair when we last see her is a statement that she would not accept an organ (or body part) donation and has accepted her natural lifespan as enough because she can't/won't take from the clones that she feels are as human as anyone else.

2.My answer here is going to be really vague because I don't have any idea how to define a soul. I don't happen to believe in life after death or a God (but I respect those who do). What makes a soul? Love? Air? A body? Who knows for certain. You can have faith but no proof. Because I don't believe in God does that mean I have no soul? I don't think so. I have a loving partner, a (mostly) happy life, great friends, two children, a dog, a house , a car, laughter, love, desire and compassion...How can you define something that means something different to so many? I don't think that there is anyway to know either way. I also don't happen to believe in organ donation. I am not a donor nor would I accept an organ if it was necessary to extend my life. My living will, my lawyer and my loved ones know this so even if someday I can't speak for myself, hopefully my wishes will still be respected. I am a blues guitarist so I must have some soul, right? I cried when my father died. When my children were hurting I was hurting also. I danced at my wedding and am beyond in love with my partner. I don't believe she completes me but I do think of her as my soulmate.

So...that's my two cents! I don't know if I answered either of your questions or just created more.

"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"

reply

[–] Bedz-2 13 years ago

I'm not sure if I believe in "a" god or a tangible afterlife. Those are things hard for me to believe in, and even harder for me to fully denounce. But I do believe that our love is eternal, and that the creative, personal things we leave behind represent our "love". Not necessarily romantic love, though i do mean that as well, but love in the sense of our connection with the rest of humanity. Our souls are the best of us, our humanity.

So this come tot he question "Do clones have souls?" I "believe" so, and I use the word believe specifically because I do not know. But they show their humanity the way the rest of us do, an "eternal love" in whichever way you want to slice it. So yes, I believe they do, and that makes it real enough for me.

Had I firmly believed in a god, I'm not so sure my answer would be the same. The clones are an act against nature, a copy by man of something god had created. God creates souls, man doesn't. So how could they have a soul if god didn't give it to them?

Since I am open to all beliefs though, and I do believe in eternal love, love which Cathy and Tommy truly shared, I am bound to believe that they do have souls as well all do, and in my opinion, its something worth believing.

reply

[–] BooksArsenal 13 years ago

"Do clones have souls?"

I was shocked that the society could ever have doubted they did.

I mean, they were modeled on real people, whom everyone presumes has 'souls.' So why would they themselves not have souls?

If that had been the real world, there would have been a huge uproar about the ethics of such a program. Maybe even uprisings/revolutions taking place, etc.

The headmistress seemed to be one of the last people on earth who was even mindful about the issues of ethics and donor souls. But there must have been a few others -- consider Miss Lucy.

It was definitely an 'alterna-world.' Perhaps a world in which a lot of history we take for granted had never even happened.

The span of time in their childhood set in 1978/1979 rang totally false with me. It felt like the 60s or even the 50s.

Even that stupid TV show they were watching (presumably in the 1980s) where the American characters used a lot of 'Valley Girl' speech seemed off. Logically, it seemed to me that that time period should have been the 70s.

But the timelines were obviously rough approximations. It was a facsimile of our world, not a duplicate.

"The clones are an act against nature, a copy by man of something god had created. God creates souls, man doesn't. So how could they have a soul if god didn't give it to them?"

Errrr...hmm. I think I have a problem with that reasoning, and I think a lot of people in our actual world would too. It sounds too easy as a rationalization, not good enough. (I realize you don't agree with it, however.)

But I didn't see any references to religion in the film. Science seemed to be what was all important in that world.

And as I said, it seemed like an artifically contrived world. Almost hermetically sealed. Evidently very conservative and 'non-questioning.' A society that was very obedient, not too introspective.

Maybe historical events that were very important, like World War II etc., had never taken place.

Le Havre: 8.5/10
Shame: 9/10
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: 9.5/10
Take Shelter: 9/10

reply

[–] cheeze71 13 years ago

You made a good point about why Miss Emily was a sympathizer (& her being in the wheelchair)!

"Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon"

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

I'm not sure if her being in a wheelchair when we last see her is a statement that she would not accept an organ (or body part) donation and has accepted her natural lifespan as enough because she can't/won't take from the clones that she feels are as human as anyone else

Really interesting point.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

[–] lovefilm375 13 years ago

Genetically a clone is the same as an identical twin, just born at a different time. The clones would be like any other person...

reply

[–] nat365 13 years ago

Exactly. Identical twins are just natural clones, but no one goes around wondering about the existence of their 'souls' (though I won't deny they are found fascinating by many).

I understand that the point of the film was more about examining certain aspects of the human condition than the plot/concept itself, but while I liked it at first, the more I've thought about it the more it has irritated me. There was so much left unexplored, and while I understand the arguments about the clones being 'raised for passivity', etc, ultimately while there have been slaves, slave castes and racism all throughout history, there has also been rebellion and discomfort with the status quo throughout history (which is why these aspects of society, while still existing, are currently underground, and are also actively fought against by [I hope] the majority). I feel like, without any form of active rebellion from anyone (or even a hint of it beyond their original teacher - who did not rebel, but told them the truth without even hinting that anything could possibly be done about it - and, in fact, reinforced its inevitability), the whole thing just comes across as so unrealistic that it makes me angry with the characters I should feel sorry for, rather than contemplative about the ease with which we ignore the suffering of others for our convenience in our society.

You could technically draw parallels with, say, ignoring the homeless. But then you can point out that not only are there organisations that actively fight against homelessness, but that many people give money, and that, unlike with the concept of clones for organ donation, the vast majority are not directly involved in causing an individual person's homelessness in any way. If donors were walking around, being interacted with, and perfectly willing to inform others of their donor status (which seems to be the case in the film's world), I am sure there would be more than a few who would stand up against the practice. Maybe we were looking at the world of slavery *before* the majority stood up against it, and before those in power did anything to stop it, but still... not even a hint of anyone attempting to get away? As long as there has been slavery there have been runaways - and slaves didn't exist only to die either (which I think would be even more incentive to run than simply slavery itself).

I suppose, in order to truly appreciate the whole thing, you just need a much more pessimistic view of the human condition and what we are all willing to accept from life than I have.

reply

[–] working_girl 13 years ago

I think the question of whether these clones had "souls" or not is less a matter of metaphysics, and more of a social justification for the immorality that was going on. They are in all aspects, just like any other human being, but society deemed them as inferior and "soulless" in order not to tackle a serious discussion about how they were being abused. The truth is, that in history we have seen this type of thing happen over and over again, so in spite of considering ourselves more evolved nowadays, I think we should be very careful to avoid falling into this type of behavior again, as there are no real guarantees that it may not actually occur again.

And nat365, first of all, I have just seen the DVD and in it, Ishiguro comments that the passivity with which the clones accept their situation is related to the fact that death is ultimately, unavoidable. The novel (and the movie) is not to be taken literally, but as a metaphor, and as such, he explains, the way the clones view their life symbolizes our own mortality, as the character of Kathy states in the end. Considering this, I think a rebellion both on the sides of the clones and "regular" human beings would be logical and even necessary at some point of the alternate line of history Ishiguro created, but he chose to tell a different story, and characters that deal with their situation differently, to convey the message he intended to. A rebellion of sorts would play more like common dystopian science fiction, and it would have been an entirely different story with a completely different message.

reply

[–] Alexmiles 13 years ago

Identical twins are just natural clones, but no one goes around wondering about the existence of their 'souls' (though I won't deny they are found fascinating by many).

There actually are cultures that believe twins to be unnatural and leave them out to die, or at least did so in the recent past. I remember reading about it in my anthropology book for uni.
Just as an interesting fact.

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

Identical twins are just natural clones, but no one goes around wondering about the existence of their 'souls' (though I won't deny they are found fascinating by many).

This is a massive assumption and ignores the process whereby twins are created versus cloning. What one makes of the process of conception will be influenced by spiritual/religious and philosophical views. The fact that you can have identical genes created in two different ways does not mean the product is the same as a person.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

[–] dark_frances 9 years ago

This is a massive assumption and ignores the process whereby twins are created versus cloning. What one makes of the process of conception will be influenced by spiritual/religious and philosophical views. The fact that you can have identical genes created in two different ways does not mean the product is the same as a person.

I understand your objection, but I don't seem to find any definition of "human being", "human" or "person" which specifies the creation process of the creature in question. The definitions are focused on genetic material, macro properties (intelligence, upright stance etc.) and social features, all of which characterize both the naturally-born, and the cloned creatures.

So, while the analogy with identical twins is flawed, it still does not mean that the clones are less entitled to be called "persons", with whatever that implies (soul, social rights and obligations etc.)

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 9 years ago

I'm not sure where you gleaned that I was saying clones are less entitled to be called 'persons'. I reacted to the idea that identical twins were clones but I'm uncertain where I stand on the matter of clones themselves. My jury's deliberating how I might consider cloned humans.

Also I'm not sure that human (being) and person are the same when considered philosophically. Humanity and personhood are not synonyms so I don't think human and person are either. To me personhood is not created through the creation process in its biological sense.

He kicked me right in the middle of my daily routine

reply

[–] dark_frances 9 years ago

It was not in your message, so I was not sure whether you were going there or not (debating the clones' personhood). But it kind of felt like you heading that way, so I threw it in there just in case. It looks like you debate their humanity - which makes more sense. My jury is done deliberating though, and the verdict is "yes".

I was not saying or implying that "human being" or "person" were synonymous, indeed I don't think they are. Just that you can't find the origin of the creature in the definition of neither. Neither "human", nor "person" are defined in terms of provenience. And, in fact, having a creature that acts & reacts like, thinks like and is biologically identical to a human, and deciding that they are not human because they were not created like a human is, would assume that the creation process is part of the definition of the notion. But even if it were, and it most certainly is in the definition of "mammal", I'd still have doubts whether you could deny them the label. Could you really say that those clones were not mammals?

Besides, if it looks, acts and is physically identical to a human, it must be a human, or things start getting weird (...and we dive head-first in the philosophy of "perfect copies", Theseus' paradox and other horrors...). Artificial lakes, islands or reefs have to be called and treated like any other lake, island or reef, including the natural ones, although the former three did not occur "naturally".
Besides, what if it turns out that our species was created, or engineered by somebody (god, alien, you name it, as many religions actually say)? Should we start treating ourselves as less worthy of humanity?
(although I'm cheating here a little, since WE have created the term; of course we would not change its usage; a better scenario would be if some god had actually created us identical to themselves, while calling their species "asjh"; would they call US "asjh" too?)

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 9 years ago

OK. Yours is a thoughtful post so let me add this.

It looks like you debate their humanity

Not quite. I debate their being human and being able to become a person as a result. I think personhood is something that humans are capable of but it's not a given of being human. I think humanity, i.e. the qualities we associate with it, are exhibited by other mammals and may be even other animals if only we could see beyond taxonomy to understand them. So humanity is not dependent upon being human. I'm not sure personhood is peculiarly human or not.

I don't think any cloned life form is a creature and its life is achieved so differently that I'm not sure I consider it animal or plant, or whatever. Yet this film (and book, for I read it afterwards) forces us to consider that the clones are humans, or at least capable of humanity and what we might recognise as a higher form of living.

I find myself twisted in knots over genetics and different ways that beings come into life, especially those manipulated by human kind. Also categorisation feels like a straightjacket. I can call clones beings and feel comfortable with that and I wish to accord every being rights to life and growth, even those from the insect world loathe. But I'm not sure how much further I can go.

Besides, what if it turns out that our species was created, or engineered by somebody (god, alien, you name it, as many religions actually say)? Should we start treating ourselves as less worthy of humanity?

No, because of the way I conceive of humanity. The qualities of humanity have been appropriated as human ones but they are not. There are humans without humanity and human and humanity do not equal personhood either. Your question reminds me of my first philosophy tutorial at university: How do we know we are not brains in vats being controlled by a scientist? Such questions are impossible to answer, some don't care about the answer and others respond intuitively one way or tother. But I'm not sure that questions of being and questions of epistemology are the same or share common answers.

He kicked me right in the middle of my daily routine

reply

[–] lucianolvr 10 years ago

ultimately while there have been slaves, slave castes and racism all throughout history, there has also been rebellion and discomfort with the status quo throughout history (which is why these aspects of society, while still existing, are currently underground, and are also actively fought against by [I hope] the majority). I feel like, without any form of active rebellion from anyone (or even a hint of it beyond their original teacher - who did not rebel, but told them the truth without even hinting that anything could possibly be done about it - and, in fact, reinforced its inevitability), the whole thing just comes across as so unrealistic

Well, thank God it's unrealistic in our world, ha ha. We can thank our lucky jelly beans for that one. Yeah, I was not sure either what world was being portrayed here. What happened to the Catholic Church? Things like that, institutions like that (not just religious ones) which would vehemently oppose cloning for consumption of their organs. If I'm not mistaken, the Catholics are against cloning, period. Might be wrong......and it makes me feel safe to know that there is still an institution in this world which preaches the sanctity of life, even unborn life, even if I myself am pro choice. I would find it a scary world where no one questioned our unbridled scientific abilities, and desire to extend our own lives. So, it definitely was not our world, where certainly Catholics and other Christians would protest this cloning idea, but I guess it has to be a different world in order to have a good story.

I also could not fathom any human being not having a soul, even if they were one of a hundred clones. God gives life, He breathes life into us all, and that's where we get our soul. It's more than a collection of firing neurons. That's my take. Interesting story, though!

Love me some Waltons

reply

[–] o341627 13 years ago

I read the book yesterday and watched the movie today. Too bad, there are some things that are not clear in the movie. When I was watching that scene at the end with Miss Emily, I was sure those who didn't read the book couldn't really know her opinion.

The point is - in the book - Miss Emily is absolutely on the clones' side. Before her, there were only government facilities with horrible environment for clones. Society didn't accept, didn't WANT to accept them as normal human beings. Knowing normal humans are butchered in order to save them, that would have been unthinkable, so people considered clones soulless creatures, created for their organs only. The facilities didn't provide normal life, just grown them up until it was time to get their organs.
Miss Emily, Madame Mary-Claude and some other sympathizers, however, believed it was a wrong, unethical thing to do, handling clones like animals, so they started this whole movement with Hailsham. They wanted to provide a normal life for these "students" until it was their time. Education, culture, socializing them like normal people so they could live outside... a life.

They were concentrating on arts a lot, because they wanted to prove they are real people, not just robots. It was an experiment, really. They took the best arts of the students to do exhibits for the public. They wanted to change the general idea, wanted to prove they had souls, get more supporters for their cause to help provide a normal life for "donors". The movement was successful at first, their program was followed by more boarding schools for clones to live until their time has come to become carers and then donors, in that order, in the outside world. But there were problems, scandals, etc, and was just a matter of time before it all collapsed, people got back to not wanting to care about the clones, looking sideways, just pretending not to know where those organs and cures are coming from. Hailsham closed, so did the other schools and it returned to the old way for new clones, in facilities.

All these were only mentioned here, too bad. The book is not all about their romance, like the movie, but I know it cannot be summed up in this small time.
When in the movie, Miss Emily said they wanted to prove they had souls at all, it was followed by a question, Kath asking "Why would anyone think we didn't have souls?", and that is when it hits you. The whole book is about their life, which is normal apart from their strange environment and upbringing, of course. They are normal people with feelings, conflicts, dreams and everything. So that's when Miss Emily started to tell how other people didn't necessarily accept that, and they were working hard to change that. That was their life's work, but all for nothing really. Apart from generations of clones that could live a happy life.

reply

[–] headrush67 13 years ago

'o341627,

Thank You.

*tigers love pepper, they hate cinnamon*

reply

[–] Oberlai 13 years ago

1. If Emily was a sympathiser, she did a good job hiding her feelings for the clones. And didn't she get rid of that teacher?

2. As you say, clones are copies, so they would be similar to the original in every way (not considering environmental affection), and the movie doesn't give any indication whatsoever that the clones had genetic deficiencies of any kind. (If they did, they wouldn't be good donors.)

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agravaine 13 years ago

I would love to say that I can't believe anyone would believe they don't have a soul and aren't human but that would be a lie. What is true is that I don't understand how anyone believed they didn't have souls. Obviously people had to believe that in order to rationalize the morals/ethics of raising them to harvest organs.

In a world where babies can be killed because someone has decided they aren't human yet I can imagine how people can be convinced these clones aren't human.

Cheers!
_____/)___/)______./¯"""/')
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\)¯¯\)¯¯¯'\_„„„„\)

reply

[–] coprogirl 13 years ago

Way to go, turning this into a Right To Life argument. Apples and oranges. A fetus is the property of the woman carrying it. In fact, it is a parasite. And, it is HER business what happens to it, not yours.

"'Scuse me while I whip this out"
Blazing Saddles

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 13 years ago

The theme, treating other people as objects to be used for one's own ends, can be extrapolated into many areas and the poster you replied to feels its resonance in terms of the abortion issue. I find this

A fetus is the property of the woman carrying it. In fact, it is a parasite

disagreeable in the extreme. The biological life and function of a parasite and that of a foetus/baby are completely different. Dependence for life in one form is not the same as dependence, sometimes at the expense of the host, for life in another.

For the record I'm pro-choice but I would not stand in line with someone who utters and believes such verbiage.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

[–] chas437 13 years ago

Agreed. The statement that an unborn fetus is a parasite is disgusting, false, and typical of over the top feminist propaganda. I'm also pro-choice, based on my views on the role of government in society. I do feel its a difficult moral decision a woman has to face. I know a woman who had an abortion 15 tears ago, and she still loses sleep over it today.

Telling a woman that their unborn fetus is just a parasite as a means to ease their conscience is total BullSh*t.

reply

[–] Simon-140 12 years ago

You may find it disagreeable, but a foetus does fit the dictionary definition of a parasite ("An organism that lives in or on another host organism and derives its nutrients from the host.")

Perhaps there's a more precise, technical definition of the word which precludes this line of argument, but I'm not aware of one.

reply

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Right, and you can also define the creation and existance of a fetus as THE means of Human Reproduction. I would say this meaning supersedes any other definitions.

reply

[–] Simon-140 12 years ago

Why does one description "supersede" the other?

If I have a black shoe then the fact that the object is a shoe doesn't change the fact that it's a black object, or vice versa. Both descriptions remain true for my black shoe, and (from a strictly logical viewpoint) neither takes precedence.

From a "common sense" point of view, I guess the fact that I have a shoe is "more important" than the fact that I have a "black object," because the former description is more specific and conveys more information, especially about the object's function. Alas, "common sense" is terribly unreliable. (If it were reliable, we wouldn't need maths or statistics.)

reply

[–] lucianolvr 10 years ago

but a foetus does fit the dictionary definition of a parasite

Yeah but it just seems like whoever says that is quoting "House".

Love me some Waltons

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 9 years ago

You may find it disagreeable, but a foetus does fit the dictionary definition of a parasite ("An organism that lives in or on another host organism and derives its nutrients from the host.")

One can quote whatever suits one's point at the time. A foetus becomes a baby and is capable of independent life at some point, typically before birth at about 9 months. A parasite by definition cannot sustain independent life. So, feelings aside, your analogy is sloppy and inaccurate.

He kicked me right in the middle of my daily routine

reply

[–] eakster 12 years ago

Interesting question and I'm glad someone asked it on here, because this was the critical moment in the whole story for me. I had decided as I watched that scene, where the teacher lays it on you: 'we were trying to see if you had souls at all' - that the clones in fact did not have souls. This was the level of my suspension of disbelief in watching the movie and was a real hammer fall, a punch in the gut, a moment that wrapped up the whole premise in one neat package and explained EVERYTHING about why these kids seemed so passive throughout. Why they never tried to escape, why they were so naive, passive. Why they didn't 'get' the TV show they were watching. Why they were shunned by the locals - the travel agents they see through the window, the men that delivered the boxes. I believed that Tommy's pictures also demonstrated this lack of soul as they seemed like very dark, empty and childlike scrawls on the paper, a fairly pathetic attempt to convince the souled' humans that he was just like them and thus deserved a deferral. (Although Kathy liked them, but also being 'soulless' and loving Tommy, she would).

On further reflection and reading some of these entertaining, thoughtful and intelligent threads about the movie I see how my interpretation is pretty radical and I am probably wrong in how I perceived that moment. They were merely brainwashed victims, in a society that had decided it didn't care and as some have said, had chosen to avoid the issue, hence no rebellion.

It seemed to me the teachers at the end were sympathetic to the clones plight, but were firmly on the side of society, and were themselves products of that society. They were absolutely not going to get any help there. The only choice was to accept their fate. The hammer fell, I got that punch in the gut and felt Tommy as his face exploded in realisation and torment. Brilliant acting there!

Props to all the actors in this movie which looks like a love story but is way more than that. Even Knightly who plays the angelic-faced bad girl so well, reminded me a lot of her character in The Hole.

I took the story in the end to basically be a variant of Romeo and Juliet. I knew one or both would be dead earlier than the viewer would have wanted, and would not get that chance to live happily together. Then I was hit with the whole soul/no soul question at the end and that has stayed with me well after watching the movie and prompted me to come here and talk about it..

reply

[–] lucianolvr 10 years ago

This was the level of my suspension of disbelief in watching the movie and was a real hammer fall, a punch in the gut, a moment that wrapped up the whole premise in one neat package and explained EVERYTHING about why these kids seemed so passive throughout. Why they never tried to escape, why they were so naive, passive. Why they didn't 'get' the TV show they were watching. Why they were shunned by the locals - the travel agents they see through the window, the men that delivered the boxes.

What an interesting concept; that they had no souls. I wonder if that's what the writer intended. Trippy movie, indeed!

Love me some Waltons

reply

[–] TheLurkingFox 11 years ago

"
2. Would a clone actually have a soul? I dont understand enough about cloning to know if a clone would have a soul but I wouldve thought a clone WOULD have a soul. I mean, isnt a clone just a genetic copy of an original, therefore it would have a soul right? How could someone know either way?????? "

Clones don't have souls. Because humans don't have souls, period. Souls don't exist. There is nothing to support the idea that there's any such thing as "a soul".

Clones are however just as sentient as "originals", just as intelligent etc. since if the cloning is done well, they're just exactly another "original".
That one was born of a mother and before the other one doesn't change the fact that biologically they're the same person (well to be exact except for some epigenetics factors which we know change during life blablabla).

Clones are like twins: the first twin to come out isn't "the true one" and the second to come out "a copy", it makes no sense.

*****
With the newspaper strike on, I wouldn't consider dying! /Bette Davis/

reply

[–] Gabe1972 11 years ago

I don't think the Miss Emily ever really had a definitive answer on the subject. Even after all that had happened in their research on the subject, I still don't think she could have given an answer.

If you are looking at it from a religious aspect, I think they would say that even a clone would have to have a soul, as it would still be human, and only God gives life, and God gives all humans souls.

For me, an atheist, I think that a soul is just who we are. What it is that makes us an individual. A clone still has that. So I think, either way you look at it, a clone would have a soul.

If the plural of mouse is mice, and the plural of goose is geese, why is the plural of moose not meese?

reply