sam is a slave? oh really? is he bought, sold, or forced to do anything against his will? if so, i missed that part.
He was "forced" through elaborate deception--i.e. false memories were implanted in his clone mind, to make him think he was up there for three years on a contract, for which he'd "return" to Earth with a big paycheck at the end. So he felt obligated to work there as instructed because his brain was programmed to think he was under a contract obligation which he "remembered" agreeing to, in exchange for pay--just as we all feel obligation to do the work of our jobs which we remember signing employment contracts to do, in exchange for the pay we will receive for that work next payday. Difference is, we actually did sign such contracts, but Sam did not. And when the three years came due he was slated to be killed by his employer rather than getting paid and "returning" to Earth.
Now technically that may not be "slavery"--or at least not exactly congruent to the examples of slavery we're most familiar with from history--but what else exactly would you call it?
Was he "bought" or "sold"? Not exactly, but certainly "owned" by the corporation (perhaps the original Sam got some compensation for giving the corporation rights to clone himself and use those clones--if so then he
was essentially "bought" and "sold", akin perhaps to parents selling their child into slavery). "Forced to do anything against his will"? Why yes--because he never actually signed any contract to work for this corporation, but was made to believe (by false memories) that he did. And of course the corporation never planned to actually pay him, because there wasn't really a contract. Would you willfully work for three years if you knew your employer would kill you at the end of it, and not pay you? Of course not. Nobody would. Hence the elaborate deception designed specifically to make him believe that wouldn't happen, as firmly as we believe we'll get paid for the 40 hours or more of work we do every week (and not get killed by our employer when they're done with us)--that belief probably being the only thing keeping us there, right? Hence the elaborate deception, to essentially make him do something that would be against his will without that complete and willful deception on their part. At the very least, he did not--could not--give his
informed consent.
The corporation essentially had him captive under their complete control (how could he get away), under circumstances he never actually agreed to (although he was made to believe he had). They used his body for three years, then would kill and dispose of that body (as they had with the other clones) when the radiation broke it down. He was essentially treated as just another piece of equipment, in a planned, scheduled, and very much premeditated fashion that hinged on planting false memories in his head that made him believe he rightfully belonged there.
They had a whole stock of Sam clones warehoused under the base, for the purpose of having and using human labor that they would not have to pay.
I'd say characterizing this as "slavery" is close enough to the mark, at least for purposes of moral judgement anyway.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
reply
share
phantom2-2
9 years ago
good answer.
is trickery the same as force? maybe - i think you can make a good case for it.
on the other hand, the company does manufacture the clones, so they have a pretty solid claim to own their creations. it all depends on whether you grant human clones human rights. if you don't, they're just biological machines - built to last three years and then disposed of, quickly, cleanly and painlessly.
what's the difference between a sam clone and gerty, really? they're both manufactured, programmed, and will be decommissioned unceremoniously when their time comes.
reply
share
yurenchu
9 years ago
what's the difference between a sam clone and gerty, really? they're both manufactured, programmed, and will be decommissioned unceremoniously when their time comes.
That's indeed the essential question of the movie.
I'd say one major difference is that the Sam clone is being limited in his potential (and hence in his freedom and choices), whereas GERTY was created specifically for service on the moonbase and was fulfilling his potential to the max.
Children could be considered "creations" that are "manufactured" by their parents. In other words, parents have a pretty solid claim to "own" their children. Suppose a child is being conceived by parents, specifically so that the child becomes, say, a perfect concert pianist. So from birth on, everything in his youth, his upbringing, education, interaction with his parents etc. is aimed by his parents at making him a concert pianist. What's the difference between that child and the Sam clone?
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0
reply
share
saxman418
8 years ago
*SPOILER ALERT*
I agree - good answer.
The main difference between the Sam clones and Gerty (apart from the obvious biological/machine difference) is that the Sams are deliberately deceived by the corporation, planted with false memories and killed at the end of their 'contracts'. Gerty is programmed to serve the clones, 'he' is not deceived, he is aware of his true function, his emoticons are there to aid communication with the Sams, he cannot have real emotions like the clones and is not programmed with false memories. In helping Sam5 to escape to Earth and suggesting the re-booting ploy he is simply following his programming. The company did not foresee the circumstances that occur in the movie.
A fascinating film, in that we become emotionally involved with the clones and Gerty and not with the 'real' Sam and his family back on Earth. The tag lines at the end serve to highten the real question - what are the statuses of clones and intelligent machines?
On the other hand - why didn't the company automate the entire energy harvesting project from the outset...? (of course there wouldn't have been a movie at all if they had).😉
Blowin' the changes!
reply
share