Where are the humanists?

Most people in the outside world found it easier to think of the clones as something other (that is, less) than human. By this logic, if you're getting organs from something that isn't really human, then it doesn't really seem like murder.

But Hailsham was set up to challenge that view. (Hence the art gallery.)

Cows do not have souls... And while I also agree that I don't, my leather jacket was derived from our harvesting of living flesh for productive goods. If you instill the idea of sepression and supremacy, then you will have a hard time trying to distill the same notion. Take a look at blue eyed brown eyed, a documentary where a teacher divided her students into two groups based on ther eye colour and gave privilege to one group or anothe. It was remarkable how quick the children submitted to their new superior rolles. One could argue in a world like this the same applies. Give the "traditions" privilege, breed organ livestock for the expressed purpose of harvest and the tale is set to be told.

If you poke at it there are many holes. Would there not be any resisters to this treatment? Even we have animal activists and vegans. Why are they not represented in the film, apart from the gallery that stands as a protest, all be in from within the inside. But I feel the film is not about the details of a human harvesting future. But rather the point at the end. Do those who have longer lives which on their death beds to have more? Is life not about living rather than dying? Is it not conceivably to most that someone with less could have more?

As the headteacher admits they was answering a question that no one really was asking. The clones was made with a genetic imperfection which made them more compelling and less ideologist then us. We have a free will of decision and most of us rebels if not happy. Cathy state that careers and doners are equally proud of their roles in the world.

First, you are naive to assume that belief in a soul is merely "religious". Countless philosophers throughout history have believed in a soul for non-religious reasons and some philosophers still believe in the existence of the soul for non-religious reasons (admittedly, materialism is the dominant view today). For instance, cf. Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro's book A Brief History of the Soul.

Second, even if we don't have souls the question still makes perfect sense in light of personhood debates. Just imagine that by "soul" the people in the book/movie mean "that which makes us valuable persons with a right to life" instead of imagining "an immaterial substance that exists apart from the body."

Third, materialistic humanism has no ultimate grounds for morality anyway... So yeah the clones don't have souls and neither do non-clones in your materialistic humanist worldview. But the materialistic humanist also can't provide any objective reason for why we shouldn't cage some set of humans and harvest their organs. So it's not that the movie that collapses like a house of cards hit by a bowling ball... it's the so-called morality of materialistic humanism that collapses like a house of cards hit by a bowling ball.