The ethics I looked into revolved around the treatment of Cookies, as well as the legal sentencing of Joe's copy within Black Mirror. As depicted in the show, Cookies are generally tortured into submission if they refuse to cooperate: a dire attempt to break their spirit. This is immoral, as although Cookies are artificial, they are still conscious and very much sentient - almost human-like. One does not simply treat a fellow human in this manner, so why do so for Cookies?
Furthermore, Cookies are punished for the crimes of their 'owners' - the "original", as one may say, as seen in Joe's copy's case. In the episode, Joe's Cookie is sentenced by an officer to a never-ending punishment (Cookies are essentially immortal) - 1.5 million years of being confined in the crime scene, with 'I Wish It Could Be Christmas' playing on a continuing loop.
Although it can be argued that the clone is the murderer, the "original" Joe was successfully imprisoned and charged with murder in reality - there is no need to punish someone that has already received their punishment/will receive due punishment. In addition:
- Cookies are harmless - there was never any need for Joe's copy to be punished as there is nothing it could have done either way
- Many prisoners receive second chances, so why can't Joe's copy?
- The extent of punishment is cruel and unnecessary - it would be kinder to kill the Cookie than for it to suffer this fate
- Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one should be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and what the officer - a legal enforcer nonetheless - has done is in clear violation of this right
- The Cookie is innocent, as it was not the one who physically committed the crime - Joe's copy is merely the blood and bones of Joe himself and nothing else: it is capable of developing its own thoughts and exhibiting its own behaviour