Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009) - Subjects or Objects

[Steven Brence]

It could be argued that the central theme of Moon is the distinction between humans and machines (or subjects and objects), and how this distinction is increasingly troubled in our technologically driven and corporatized world.

Sam Bell (all of them) is both programmed and reduced, via that programming and wholesale deception, to being a mere means in respect to Lunar Industries' ends. Even his (their?) experience of subjectivity and autonomy is conditioned by that programming, such that it is not clear that he is a self-determining creature (as one Sam says to another--a clone can't have a contract, noting that contracts may only be entered into by beings capable of making promises, persons, that is).

On the other hand, Gerty, presumably also programmed, is seemingly able to act in independent and novel ways, at turns alternately serving his function as determined by Lunar Industries, and then undermining them, entering into conspiratorial action with the Sams to act outside of those functions. He even seems to have developed (in an interesting commentary on 2001: A Space Oddity) a physical sympathy for the Sams, reaching out to comfort one after having come clean in regard to the deception he has been subject to). Yet Gerty, despite this possibility for free, self-determining action, and even self-reflective emotion, does not seem to fear being "rebooted", and thus does not seem to think of himself as a person, but still as an object, or even property.

As is the case with all good science-fiction, this film, although set in the future, clearly aims to comment upon the present. How do we understand that commentary, however? To what degree may we be, from an external point of view, more like objects than subjects, despite whatever inner convictions we may have to the contrary? To what degree have our own technological and organizational creations taken on qualities of subjects or persons, even though they may not yet regard themselves as such? Is Moon identifying a genuine problem for us? If it is, what would this problem mean for the future of morality which trades so heavily upon the distinction between persons and things?

[D.Gumaer]

From an external viewpoint, a person’s options are often determined by forces outside of him and things he has no control over. For example, the
economy may strictly restrict someone from any measure of success. In America, it’s not unimaginable to think a person could be faced with the
option of either picking an unfulfilling job to act as a tool for someone for the smallest wage legally allowed, or to face unemployment, poverty, and
potential homelessness.

American society seems to be set to restrict to what degree we can treat a person as an ends, rather than merely as a means, because so much of our
society is run by and for the interests of business, which generally speaking, does not view persons as ends.

This ties into the idea of to what extent our technological and organizational developments have taken on the qualities of persons. I’m speaking not of a
machine being a man, but of the corporate personhood debate. What rights of persons should be given to legal or corporate persons? Historically
corporate persons can lobby the government, have the right to speak freely, and so forth. But it seems that if we regard this organizational creation as a
person, it is, at the very least, a very immoral one which it seems by its nature seeks to treat others as means for its ends.

With this in consideration, Moon may be identifying part of a problem for us insofar as we accept the Kantian idea that persons are ends, and not
something else, like happiness.

Sam Bell was given life, dreams, aspirations, and a very important job with a distinct sense of purpose. In at least one sense, Sam is better off than a
modern man who is left gravely depressed with no sense of direction, jobless, etc.

Yet Sam is treated like an object. He’s been programmed and set in an environment with a powerful intent to deceive him. His ability to exercise his
autonomy has been stripped from him and so he is treated as if he has no moral status – treated like a tool.

Would it be less problematic if Sam was not deceived? Imagine if the Sam character had been selected because his original held the characteristics of a
person who would appreciate working in solitude, had a deep love for the moon, and would generally be happy under the conditions provided to him.
We could even dangle the theoretical potential that Sam could leave at any time he wanted, although he would never do it. Is it less problematic if we
leave him his autonomy knowing he won't use it?

At this point his autonomy is still there in appearance, but like the capitalist model at the start of my summary, his autonomy seems to be more illusion
than reality at this point.

The meaning of doing right or wrong no longer has weight when choice has been removed from it, and similarly, it seems that the meaning of making
choices is not valuable if a "real" choice isn’t there. It seems at that point we’re talking about “crimes against humanity”, as one reporter put it in the
last 20 seconds of “Moon”, as opposed to simply crimes against Sam.

In summary, insofar as we accept Kantian ethics rather than a form of ethics which allows for others to be used as tools, ethics itself seems rattled by this
scenario. I'll refrain from answering if this is a problem for man today, as I'm somewhat of a moral skeptic, but if you adopt Kantian ethics, there is a clear
and present danger for both modern and future man.

[TWolfe]

For me, Moon literally depicts the environment of working in corporate America. Having worked in industry before, I can attest to the feeling like an "object" being used as merely a means to make the company money. I interpreted Sam's drawings of the faces on the wall to be a representation of the many clones that had passed through the station. When I worked in industry, I used to make an analogy that all the workers were just spots on the wall that could be rubbed off at a moment's notice. We had no real intrinsic value to the company and were as likely to become obsolete as any of the equipment or machines in the building. Despite the fact that all the workers felt they were important and of value, management gave no indication that they valued the workers over the machines.

The Sam Bell clones and Gerty seem to be the same species. They are both machines, created by Lunar Industries to work at this space station. What is interesting is that the Sam Bell machines were created to look and act like humans, including having human emotions. Was there a purpose for this? I assumed it was because of a need for the clone to get into a rover and check on the harvesters. However, Gerty could have easily done that remotely from the station. Additionally, why not just create a clone with no memories and no emotions? These qualities don't seem important to the job and would be detrimental to the subject in isolation. Gerty didn't seem to be created in this fashion, but was still a form of artificial intelligence. Over the course of the movie, Gerty seem to be developing aspects of affect and could empathize with the condition of the "Sams." Did the company choose the same technology for the clones as was used on Gerty?

I'm guessing that Gerty has a higher ranking than Sam, since he has a two-way direct link to the corporation. Why does the corporation choose to communicate only with the "computer" and not the human-clone? One could say that the corporation doesn't view the Sams as human, but then I don't think they view Gerty as human either. Is this a form of discrimination? I could easily envision the management assuming Gerty to be a "machine" based on outward appearances and therefore would not have any emotion nor the capacity to gain emotion. The management would not react in the same manner talking to any of the Sams, as he looks and acts human. In an attempt to keep the clones functioning as a "machine," they remove them from direct human contact.

Gerty does seem to develop human qualities over the course of the movie. I wonder if Gerty doesn't begin to view itself in terms of a being with feelings. While S.Brence mentioned that Gerty didn't seem to fear being "rebooted," maybe this was a selfless act performed for the benefit of the Sam that wanted to get home. From a strict machine programming viewpoint, revealing the deception that the Sams have been subjected to, giving Sam password access into the computer that allows him to reprogram the harvesters, and then ultimately allowing itself to be rebooting to remove the deception could be considered free, self-determining action. Gerty has sympathized with the plight of the Sams and is willing to "sacrifice" himself for the good of another.

What does this say about the ethics of business practices in today's world? Is is not easier to treat another human as an "object" when they are just an email or text message? Telecommunications has made it as such that the human element seems to be removed from business practices and machines perform all the interpersonal functions. Likewise, a situation occurring on the moon (i.e. a very long distance) would seem to have less impact on the public than something occurring locally. Add the element of being hidden from the public view by the corporation and the situation becomes virtually nonexistent. This becomes the "crimes against humanity," as D.Gumaer pointed out.

The corporation then takes a utilitarian viewpoint, in that they view overstepping a few individuals' (in this case the clones) rights in favor of maximizing social consequences. The work done on the moon is providing fuel to millions of people on Earth, so what does it matter if a few clones are used up and destroyed in this process? As Foxm2 pointed out, the harvesters all had biblical names. Do corporations not appear to assume the role of "God" in decision making processes? Think of the decisions that corporations make for the purpose of maximizing output to the investors and what they believe is the greater good for society, regardless of the few individuals that may be harmed in the process. Those few individuals then become "objects" that are disregarded. I would say that this becomes a huge problem for future generations if humans are increasingly conditioned to view sacrificing others as mere objects for the greater good.

[duboisec]

I too thought that Moon was a film based on humans verse objects and what it means to be considered human or an object. It also depicted them in reverse roles in a sense.

I felt like Gerdy was depicted as having human feelings and ideas although obviously a machine. Gerdy showed emotion toward Sam(s) and the situation in which the clones were stuck in. He displayed this by going against programing which in the "real world" would be impossible for a machine to achieve. Machines are not thought to have feelings or the right to choose.

I felt like Sam(s) were more characters of objects than Gerdy. Gerdy was spoken to through live feed and in charge of keeping the clones moving and on target where the clones were mere puppets of lunar secluded on the moon conducting a job long over due.

[cgrinstead]

From my perspective, Duncan Jones was attempting to delineate between human beings and objects, as Steven said. The characters had these ideas and memories implanted from inception, and the use of those memories served as the motivating factor for Sam to complete the three year stint. Without these memories, it would have been easier for the Sam character to stray from his duties without the humanizing factor of the relationship between himself and his wife and daughter. The fact that the three year cycle was also based on an expiration date on the models also gave credence to the thought of Sam as a commodity.


The one troubling part of the film that I had was the interaction between the clones of Sam. The knowledge of another carbon copy of oneself I think would be much harder to handle than the way it was portrayed in the film. I'm not sure that those two would be able to develop the relationship that they did with the knowledge that they were the same person.

[C. Smith]

I found this movie very depressing mostly because I believe that it is realistic. This is something mankind really could do to itself---or may even be doing so already.

The United States, though definitely not perfect in this (or any) regard, has a plethora of laws and restrictions on businesses to be relatively transparent. Many countries lack the ability or even the drive to restrict such actions. As this movie points out, it is hard to see crimes against humanity if they are out-of-sight. The dark side of the moon is as out-of-sight as one can get, but how many of you have traveled the world? How many of you don't even know your neighbors? From the increase in programming professions from your desk at home to popular entertainment like WOW, society is becoming more introverted. This kind of environment is perfect for amoral or even just desperate people to exploit each other. If the opportunity is there, then people will seize it---either out of desperation or just plain old greed. Things of this nature could be (or are) taking place outside of society's sight.

Another reason why I believe this story is so realistic is that corporations and other large organizations allow people to reason themselves into believing that their amoral action is good. Common arguments are that it is "for the company" or "for a greater good." This kind of delusion is not novel. The Germans at Auschwitz had to tell themselves something in order to sleep at night. People in corporate jobs are seen by their peers and even see themselves as objects---means to the organization's ends. Just like the Sams were just means for Lunar industry's ends. Though I agree with TWolfe that the particulars in the movie were hard to buy into (it tends to happen in many science fiction settings), I really believe that this kind of action happens in humanity and is a problem to be addressed.

The positive part of this movie was that there was a societal uproar against this atrocity when Sam brought the truth to Earth and made it public. For this to be the public opinion of the future is highly debatable. As a famous contemporary biomedical philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues, with the dawn of new gene therapy technology, people may lose their sense of self. When the line between natural and made gets blurry, will we care enough about ourselves to know that, for example, the cloned Sam(s) situation is a crime against humanity? Possibly. But I'd like to keep somewhat optimistic that humanity is stubborn enough to not let that happen. The ending showed the people in society holding each other accountable and insinuated positive change as a result. As long as that continues to happen even with the advent of new biomedical technology, then humanity (from an ethical perspective) will persist.