![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Since Nim asked, here are my thoughts on clones and souls.
I think the best way to think about clones is to examine the current example of two individuals with the same DNA; identical twins. In the situation of identical twins, there are two individuals who are as alike physically as it is possible to be. But while they may be identical physically for all intents and purposes, they are still two distinct individuals, with different personalities. For the purposes of this discussion, I am using a loose definition of soul to mean that unique part of someone that determines their sense of self, their personality, and their morals. Identical twins have different souls, which explains why they may turn out so differently, although there are often similarities due to heritage, physical self, and so on. I don't think any of this is particularly controversial so far (assuming that you agree that souls exist).
However, bring up the idea of clones, and suddenly people seem to think, imaginatively at least, that DNA is everything. Take, for example, the idea of cloning a pet. If a dog or cat has a soul, an essential self that is distinct from their physical self (leaving aside any question of the mortality of an animal's soul), then cloning a pet will not give you the same animal. Cloning Rover will give you a dog that is at most physically identical to Rover. Two clones of Rover will not even be identical, because each dog has a soul, and the souls are different. Now, physically, cloning Rover will give the clones certain proclivities towards certain behavior, but genetics will only account for so much. Each dog is still an individual, even if identical physically. But people who clone their pets seem to think that what they are getting really is Rover, only a younger version.
Similarly, while many people may not deny the existence of the individual soul, imaginatively there is this mythos that a clone is the same person. A clone is only the same person if a human may be reduced to their physical self. The physical self may give the person certain tendencies (I don't like walnuts because I am mildly allergic), certain characteristics (I was klutzy in high school) but ultimately the individual is not defined by the physical self. As a thought experiment, take two clones, give them basically the same education, family, and so on, and then present them with a difficult moral choice. Will the two of necessity make the same choice? If the self is defined by the physical, then they must make the same choice, but if the self is defined by the soul, then they may choose differently, because they have two different souls.
The conclusion, then, is that cloning your daughter will not give you two daughters who are exactly alike. More interestingly, cloning yourself will not result in a younger copy of yourself. I think most people would probably intellectually agree, but imaginatively I think there is a tendency to equate the self with the physical self especially when dealing with clones and to think of a clone as a copy, not merely of the physical self, but as a copy of the person. If I am right, though, and a clone is someone who is identical physically while having a different soul, a clone might fall in love with someone else, might choose different morally, and might have a completely different personality.
I think the best way to think about clones is to examine the current example of two individuals with the same DNA; identical twins. In the situation of identical twins, there are two individuals who are as alike physically as it is possible to be. But while they may be identical physically for all intents and purposes, they are still two distinct individuals, with different personalities. For the purposes of this discussion, I am using a loose definition of soul to mean that unique part of someone that determines their sense of self, their personality, and their morals. Identical twins have different souls, which explains why they may turn out so differently, although there are often similarities due to heritage, physical self, and so on. I don't think any of this is particularly controversial so far (assuming that you agree that souls exist).
However, bring up the idea of clones, and suddenly people seem to think, imaginatively at least, that DNA is everything. Take, for example, the idea of cloning a pet. If a dog or cat has a soul, an essential self that is distinct from their physical self (leaving aside any question of the mortality of an animal's soul), then cloning a pet will not give you the same animal. Cloning Rover will give you a dog that is at most physically identical to Rover. Two clones of Rover will not even be identical, because each dog has a soul, and the souls are different. Now, physically, cloning Rover will give the clones certain proclivities towards certain behavior, but genetics will only account for so much. Each dog is still an individual, even if identical physically. But people who clone their pets seem to think that what they are getting really is Rover, only a younger version.
Similarly, while many people may not deny the existence of the individual soul, imaginatively there is this mythos that a clone is the same person. A clone is only the same person if a human may be reduced to their physical self. The physical self may give the person certain tendencies (I don't like walnuts because I am mildly allergic), certain characteristics (I was klutzy in high school) but ultimately the individual is not defined by the physical self. As a thought experiment, take two clones, give them basically the same education, family, and so on, and then present them with a difficult moral choice. Will the two of necessity make the same choice? If the self is defined by the physical, then they must make the same choice, but if the self is defined by the soul, then they may choose differently, because they have two different souls.
The conclusion, then, is that cloning your daughter will not give you two daughters who are exactly alike. More interestingly, cloning yourself will not result in a younger copy of yourself. I think most people would probably intellectually agree, but imaginatively I think there is a tendency to equate the self with the physical self especially when dealing with clones and to think of a clone as a copy, not merely of the physical self, but as a copy of the person. If I am right, though, and a clone is someone who is identical physically while having a different soul, a clone might fall in love with someone else, might choose different morally, and might have a completely different personality.
