OnlineBookClub.org

This is a discussion topic for the April 2025 Book of the Month, "Chloe The Clone" by William E. Mason

How does "Chloe The Clone" by William E. Mason address morality vs. survival?

“Chloe The Clone” shows how people are sometimes forced to choose between doing what’s right and doing what helps them survive. Sam was meant to use Chloe for her organs, but when he finds out she’s sentient; able to think, feel, and talk, he starts to see her as human. The story then becomes about protecting her life, even though it puts his own at risk. It highlights how survival can push people to cross moral lines, but also how love and empathy can make them fight to do the right thing.

We can see how people often choose morality in most cases, like how Sam's friends viewed Sam's choice for survival. Every character presented their own views, though. Initially, Sam did not care about their moral perspectives because all he wanted was a heart. However, he was also caught in a moral dilemma after learning Chloe was sentient. Ultimately, I say morality wins, and survival just becomes a drop in comparison since we are compelled to do the right thing.

As humans, we often put our morals above everything. But desperate situations sometimes make us choose things which are against our morals. However, in this book, as soon as Sam found out about Cloe having all kind of sense and emotions, his morals took over and survival became a mere factor for him.

Chloe The Clone shows how survival can push people to face tough moral choices, especially when a life depends on another’s.

I think it sheds light on this dilemma. At such a time, what is more appropriate, your morals or your very existence? I have read several reviews of the book and I think the story is interesting.

The book sheds light on the question of whether you would compromise your morality and overlook what you believe is right to make sure you survive and live a few years longer.

The race for survival can blur our ability to tell right from wrong as played out in this story. Sam shows that even in the face of tough choices, it is also important we do not lose our humanity just to survive.

The book expresses quite a few moral values from different perspectives - we have Andropov on one end and Sam's support group on the other. Sam falls in the middle - he values his survival over ethical concerns such as those of the support group, but once a certain boundary is reached, such as the clone being sentient, he can't prioritize his survival any longer. I think this is very realistic. People tend to be pragmatic and focused on survival, but some are driven by morals over that and still others have their own moral compass they'll obey even if it doesn't align entirely with the former's.