Day 2 InstructionsWelcome to Day 2 of the Midterm Exam. Belo…

Questions

Dаy 2 InstructiоnsWelcоme tо Dаy 2 of the Midterm Exаm. 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.A note on your Day 1 essay: Your essay uses this passage from Parfit: "each person's existence just involves the existence of a brain and body, a doing of certain deeds, the thinking of certain thoughts, the occurrence of certain experiences" as a checklist: the clone has a brain, a body, does deeds, thinks thoughts, therefore Sam Bell is still alive. But Parfit is not offering a diagnostic test for whether someone counts as the same person. He is describing what all of personal identity reduces to: there is no further fact beyond these elements. The question Parfit is actually asking is whether Relation R (psychological continuity and connectedness) holds between two beings, and what follows morally when it does or doesn't. Your essay needs to engage with Relation R directly, not treat the passage you've quoted as a parts list. When you do this, you'll find that some of your best ideas (especially the argument about Lunar Industries owing Eve a version of Sam) become significantly stronger, because you'll be able to ground them in what Parfit actually argues rather than in speculation about what Sam Prime probably wanted. Day 2 Wrinkle: As you continue your essay, consider the following claim from Parfit: the reductionist view does not entail that we should be less concerned about our future welfare rather it entails that we should be more concerned about the welfare of others. How does this claim bear on the argument you are making?  Your Day 1 Writing: Does the death of Sam Bell Prime change the moral status of the arrangement?            In order to give any merit to the claim that something should or should not change in the agreement between Sam Bell and Lunar Industries we must first examine if this fact is even true. According to Parfitian reduction-ism the death of Sam Prime is completely irrelevant to the case of whether or not the clones should be morally permissible to work on the moon.  Based solely on the fact that Sam Bell is not dead. Parfit clear lays outs reductinism by its components (almost ironically). He states INSERT NEW QUOTE"On the reductionist view each person's existence just involves the existence of a brain and body, a doing of certain deeds, the thinking of certain thoughts, the occurrence of certain experiences and so on". While he does leave some room open for interpretation the interpretation falls on the idea that there is more things that can make and individual qualitatively the same. With all of the premises he has listed for us we can see that Sam Bell is still alive. Sam Bell still has a brain and body, he is doing the same certain deeds, Sam is still thinking the same certain thoughts, and has similar experiences to the original Sam Prime. By all matters of reductionism Sam Bell is still a live and well, working on the moon to provide for his daughter and his society at home.transition sentenceWhat would stay the same?                Sam Bell prime was fully aware that at one point there would be an end to his life. Assuming that Sam Prime is aware of this fact and wants what is best for him and his family we can assume that he would want the work to continue. It is hard to imagine the alternative where a loving father would not want his children to be supported even after his death. Many people take out large life insurance policies to ensure the safety of their kids. I have heard of a specific case where a stock broker even suffered such a loss that he committed suicide in order for the life insurance policy to take care of his kids financially instead of them having to suffer the burden of financial instability of the father selling all assets in order to make up for his estates.transition sentence                 In addition to the previous idea of Sam Prime's probable wants for his loved one's. I think it can be implied that Sam likely had planned to die before the clones ran out. Assuming a starting point of 25 (this is cutting into the younger side of what was more than likely to be his age given that he was qualified to operate multi-billion dollar assets on the moon) and adding three years for each additional clone that was present on the moon ; we can see that Sam Prime did in fact plan for the clones to outlive him. In the scene with the "hidden room" that the clones find we can see that there is well more than 30 clones of Sam Prime, all ready to pick up where the next one left off. With a little calculations (25 Sam Prime years + 3*30 clones= 115 years of Sam Prime's life)  it is evident that Sam Prime would be irrational to believe that he could live out the clones. This concept further asserts that Sam Prime would want the clones to continue his service as a part of lunar industries.Transitional Paragraph What would change about the agreement?          I personally believe that while the death of Sam Prime does not really change the agreement of his obligation to work on the moon I think it does raise an interesting moral question about the responsibilities of Lunar industries to return Sam Bell back home to his daughter. While Sam Prime most likely foresaw that the the clones would outlive him; Sam Prime probably did not imagine that he would die a premature death on Earth. We must then look at what the agreement said about Sam's return trip. If the Lunar industries had any responsibilities in the death of Sam Prime should they not be held accountable to provide eve with a father? The entire agreement sits on this Idea that if Sam does his duties he will get to live a happy and fruitful life with his family and not be strained by financial hardship or time away for work ever again. I believe there is a case to be made about the obligation of Lunar Industries to ship home a clone or even possibly clones in order to be with his family. If there is no version of Sam Bell at home then the argument can be made that there is no longer a Sam Bell. We can see this through the violation of reductionist beliefs on what a makes a person. Parfit states  "On the reductionist view each person's existence just involves the existence of a brain and body, a doing of certain deeds, the thinking of certain thoughts, the occurrence of certain experiences and so on". If there is no Sam at home taking care of his family then we are missing the criteria of "a doing of certain deeds". If the elements of reductionism are missing then we no longer have a person. If Sam Bell still had the same body, brain and doing of deeds but no similar thinking of thoughts then we would not have the same person. We just have a shell that partakes in similar behaviors of Sam Bell. Twins are not the same person if the are identical and go to the same school and participate in the same activities. So why do we get to claim that the Sam Bell that is no longer taking care of his family the same person?