Responsibility and The Dangers of Science in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

However, the results of the creation of the Creature are egregious, as the creature begins to murder people, specifically Victor’s loved ones, including his brother William upon realizing that William is related to Victor. Victor here is partially at fault in his brother’s death, as he abandoned the Creature, leaving it to terrorize the people. Though he is overwhelmingly contrite for their deaths, he neglects to admit who the true culprit is in William’s murder and allows Justine Moritz to take the blame, an example of his morally ambiguous actions. His inconsiderate actions cost Justine her life, though he feels horrible for it. Even then, he argues that the action he regrets the most—the creation of the monster—was the work of destiny, which was “too potent, and her immutable laws had decreed my utter and terrible destruction.” (Shelley 23) Again, Victor places blame on fate to justify his obsession with ambition that led him to create the thing he regrets the most. His failure to recognize his role in William’s, Justine’s, etc. deaths while concurrently feeling remorseful for them solidifies his status as a morally

this in such a way that the reader feels sorry for the monster, but we

If a child acted violently toward another child, should the parents of that child be held responsible for the inappropriate behavior, or should the child take full responsibility for his/her actions? This question of responsibility comes up often in Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein. Her horrific and dark tale of the mad, science-obsessed Victor Frankenstein, wanting to create life from what had already been dead, evokes questions of who is at fault for the creature’s murders. Although some may say that the creature is at complete fault because he is own “person”, but ultimately Victor is at fault because he is the one who created a being that destroyed the lives of innocent people due to how he treated the creature.

He always puts the blame on his passions or his wishes, never himself. He even blames his own father. According to Victor, his actions are the the fault of the “spirit of good” or chance or knowledge. When he does finally acknowledge that the creation of the creature and the way the creature grew up is his fault, he claims he’s only “not altogether free from blame”. He does not fully take the blame, and then he goes on to basically say that everybody makes mistakes, so it’s okay that he reanimated and abandoned a human who had already been dead. He calls his creation a catastrophe, a wretch, a miserable monster, a filthy demon, a devil, a depraved wretch. What Victor does not acknowledge is that he was the one who made the creature this way. When it comes to describing Victor, he is seen as “noble and godlike in ruin”. He is not seen as a monster who did irreparable damage to another human being, but as a fallen god. What’s more is that Victor does not hesitate to blame himself for the deaths of William, Henry, Elizabeth, and even Justine. Though he is, in a way, responsible for their deaths, it’s by extension. He won’t take the blame for what he’s truly responsible for-creating and abandoning this creature with nothing but fear, confusion, and

Mary Shelley expresses various ethical issues by creating a mythical monster called Frankenstein. There is some controversy on how Mary Shelley defines human nature in the novel, there are many features of the way humans react in situations. Shelley uses a relationship between morality and science, she brings the two subjects together when writing Frankenstein, and she shows the amount of controversy with the advancement of science. There are said to be some limits to the scientific inquiry that could have restrained the quantity of scientific implications that Mary Shelley was able to make, along with the types of scientific restraints. Mary Shelley wrote this classic novel in such a way that it depicted some amounts foreshadowing of the

For as long as man has encompassed this world, the divisive enigma of humanity has prevailed. Seeping its way into each generation, while sparking heated conversations, it has become evident that there is much we do not know about what truly makes us human. Regardless of our genetic composition, philosophers often ponder the deeper meaning of humanity. We know that, biologically, recreating the genetic makeup of a human does not yield humanity, so what is the missing aspect? Humans -have the ability to contemplate their own existence in this world. Awareness of existence. This driving force enables us to analyze situations while placing ourselves within them. Our involuntary ability to understand the impact of our actions and the affect they have on others causes us to be inherently human. Our actions evoke strong emotions within us that allow us to learn through our experiences. We retain the resonated feelings of certain occurrences and apply them to others in order to deduce outcomes. Often this facet of mankind is taken for granted, yet we are reminded, through both literature and hypothetical scenarios, of its importance. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, constitutes as one of these profound reminders. Shelley develops a theoretical story in which the humanity of Frankenstein’s monster is questioned. Despite having the accurate organs and framework of a human, Shelley causes the reader to seek the missing aspect that is preventing the monster from being human. Likewise,

Over two centuries ago, Mary Shelley created a gruesome tale of the horrific ramifications that result when man over steps his bounds and manipulates nature. In her classic tale, Frankenstein, Shelley weaves together the terrifying implications of a young scientist playing God and creating life, only to be haunted for the duration of his life by the monster of his own sordid creation. Reading Shelley in the context of present technologically advanced times, her tale of monstrous creation provides a very gruesome caution. For today, it is not merely a human being the sciences are lusting blindly to bring to life, as was the deranged quest of Victor Frankenstein, but rather to

Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein cannot merely be read as a literary work of the early 19th century. It represents the workings of young Shelley's mind. Further, it represents the vast scientific discoveries of the time, combined with Mary Shelley's intuitive perception of science. She views science as a powerful entity, but also recognizes the dangers if uncontrolled. Shelley demonstrates this fear in the book as science drives Victor Frankenstein to create his monster. In the end, it is also his use of science that inevitably becomes his demise.

    The creature's ambiguous humanity has long puzzled readers of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. In this essay I will focus on how Frankenstein can be used to explore two philosophical topics, social contract theory, and gender roles, in light of ideas from Shelley's two philosophical parents, William Godwin, and Mary Wollstonecraft.

The most frightening horror story can only be called such if it is believable. Nothing is so unnerving as lying awake at night with very real fears. No monster can harm you, unless the monster was genetically engineered by a mad scientist. The theme of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - scientific investigation without consideration of morality and responsibility - is a very relevant topic in today's world. This theme, along with the less obvious themes of revenge, prejudice against deviation from the norm, and fate all make Frankenstein one of the most unique and terrifying horror novels ever.

There is nothing more profound about the topic of science and technology than its ability to be a partner in helping to save lives. It is so influencial in coming up with the latest drugs to combat harmful and even deadly diseases and viruses such as AIDS, and some cancers. We are where we are today because of the remarkable innovations in science and technology. The idea that lives can be saved from such innovations as a new flu vaccine, or a new type of antibiotic that can battle chicken pox, and many other diseases. Its all about the advancements that we get from science and technology that let us live the way we do. Now, we dont have to worry about dying from the chicken pox or

Modern science has dramatically evolved over the past years, there is a concern on whether or not people will try to play God with such developments and what damaging consequences could occur. Body modifications, cloning, Genetic engineering, and various fields in biotechnology are prime examples of fields that are attaining great advancements in a swift manner that increase concerns over the consequences. Progress in science induces people to question what it means to be a human and their own human nature, just as it causes people to question the effects that scientific progress may have on their good fortune, happiness or common welfare.The protagonist of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein is incited to advance the field of

“Here we find nature to be the circumstance which[…] judges like a god all men that come to her.” is one of the first statements by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay “Nature”, referring to nature’s role in romanticism. Nature, as well as science, are one of the main topics depicted in writings of the romantic period. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein can be attached to these writings. Her novel implies many natural and scientific characteristics that approach throughout the novel and finally clash by Victor Frankenstein’s creation of the monster. The following essay states the importance of nature and science in Frankenstein and argues that Frankenstein’s monster is a personalization of the danger involved in connecting both nature and science.

His hypothesis was that through the power of nature, he could reanimate organic tissue which his chosen mentors had claimed to achieve. Though Victor Frankenstein’s experimentation required a form, which took him to the charnel houses to claim tissue from the deceased. The creature was complete with the animating science developed by Victor Frankenstein. His hypothesis proved true in the respect that it could give life. Throughout the process he underwent to create the creature at no time in the process was there a point to reflect as to whether or not he should create such a monster. There was no point in the process to stop and contemplate the possible outcome of his experiment and its effect on humanity. Victor Frankenstein followed the scientific process to the letter of the word, without trepidation as to his actions. There was no point, as it was not ascribed to be essential to the course of discovery. Victor Frankenstein’s creation was not completely due to his own scientific irresponsibility, it is due to the scientific community whose emphasis on the if we can do something outweighed the decision of whether or not we should do something. There is no safeguard to this question of advancement or what is beneficial to humanity. Victor Frankenstein performed his profession and found it to be lacking in this one area, and he would pay for it in the lives the creature would soon end. Victor

In her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley is trying to convey the message that science and technology can be dangerous in the wrong hands. She affirms this idea through the character of Victor, a cautionary tale, but dispels the idea that all pursuit of knowledge is bad through more traditionally romantic characters such as Henry Clerval. Shelley is complicit in her understanding that curiosity and experimentation are unbreakably tied to the human condition, and tries to warn the world of the evil that can come from this. However, the effects of the interpretation of this book can vary: it is an exemplary cautionary tale, and a much needed reminder of ethics in an increasingly technology-dependent world, but one could easily take these warnings too far and use her novel as a means to quell innovation or incite censorship. In a world of technology that would be unbelievable to Shelley, her work still remains relevant, notably in the field of genetic engineering. Frankenstein raises important questions about ethics, responsibility and censorship, and is applicable to modern technological issues such as genetic engineering.