Morality in Frankenstein
With the cloning of life forms and genetic engineering now commonplace, the question of the morality of the actions of Dr. Frankenstein is now more important than ever. Perhaps the novel Frankenstein contains lessons that can be applied in today’s technologically advanced world. It was Dr. Victor Frankenstein's opinion that it was morally acceptable to give life to his creation. Frankenstein's creation then needed a companion. Knowing that his first creation was evil, should the doctor make a second? Even with the knowledge at hand Dr. Frankenstein decides that it is not at all morally correct to bring another monster into the world.
***Generally, try to avoid using questions in a formal paper.
Looking at this problem with his family in mind, the doctor begins his work on the second monster. The first monster threatened Frankenstein and even his family. The monster angrily said to Frankenstein, "I can make you so wretched" (162). Trying to scare Frankenstein for not creating his mate, the monster resorted to threats. If the good doctor does create a companion for his first creation, he may be endangering others. Victor looks at his work and calls it "the miserable monster whom I had created" (152). If there is another monster, there will be twice the power and possibly twice the evil, which could hurt or kill his family. When and if Frankenstein commits the moral sin of creating another monster, he may be rid of both monsters forever. "With the companion you bestow I will quit the neighbourhood of man," (142) promises the morally corrupt monster to the doctor upon the completion of his partner. There is a chance that the monsters will not keep their promise and stay in Europe, evoking fear into the townsfolk.
***This paragraph is a little bit hard to follow. I think the problem is with the “if” statements. It would help to reword them as definite statements, because in the novel they already happened. Also, the last sentence doesn’t seem to fit into the flow of the paragraph.
The good doctor, trying to act morally, destroys the monster for the good of the world. The monsters can potentially take over whatever they please. "A race of devils would be propagated,"(163) thinks Frankenstein to himself in his study. The monsters, if powerful enough, could possibly take over Europe. Frankenstein realizes that he can not possibly doom the world to benefit himself. "Shall I, in cold blood, set loose upon the earth a daemon?" (162) argues Frankenstein with his creation. It is not morally right for one person to unleash such a terror on the world for the benefit of only himself and his family. Frankenstein will not let any example change his mind on the point that the monster is and will always be morally corrupt. Continuing on his point that the monster was too evil to duplicate, Frankenstein says, "Your threats cannot move me to do an act of wickedness; but they confirm me in determination of not creating you a companion in vice"(63). Frankenstein will not sacrifice his morality because of persuasion from a monster. Although beholding the threat of death and misery, Frankenstein held his ground and did not sacrifice his morals.
When and if Frankenstein creates another monster he cannot feel as if he has done the morally right thing. Creating the monster will make people other than himself unhappy. " I consent to your demand, on your solemn oath to quite Europe forever, and every other place in the neighbourhood of man," (143) says Frankenstein as he sees the power that the two could possibly possess. The good doctor sees that, with his own hands, he could possibly scar the world forever. The doctor wants, if anyone, himself to be unhappy instead of all of man kind. "Begone! I do break my promise," (162) states the doctor angrily. Not thinking of himself but rather of the world, he unselfishly breaks his promise to the monster. Possessing such a great mind the doctor is able to realize that a greater evil will be released upon the earth then upon himself. "Your threats cannot move me to do an act of wickedness,"( 162) says the doctor as he argues his point with his creation. The doctor sees that a greater and more horrible result can come from him making the second monster than not.
With the knowledge that Dr. Frankenstein has at hand, it is not at all morally correct to bring another monster into the world. On one hand, creating the second monster would save Frankenstein's family. By the same token the rest of the world could be forced to bow before two hideous monsters. Even though Frankenstein began his work for the good of man, his experiment ended up hurting himself, his family, and society. Let us pray that this pattern is not repeated with the current work in cloning and genetic engineering.
You have a good idea here, and I like how you connect the book with current issues. I think that some grammatical improvements would make your point a lot clearer. For instance, make sure that your tenses are consistent. Choose whether you want to use past tense or present tense (a lot of papers like this use present) and then go through your paper and check every single verb to make sure it’s consistent. When you use the “if-then” statements, it confuses the tense because it’s hard to tell what tense to follow it with. I would suggest rewording all of the if statements. However, if you want to leave them in, you would need to use the conditional tense (would, should, etc.) Also, I think that you could incorporate a little more plot. I like how you incorporate quotes into your argument -- that’s done very effectively. Now just put in some more detail from the plot. At the end, for instance, I found myself wondering how creating a second monster would save his family.
Partner sites: Labrador Retriever, Study Spanish in Costa Rica, and Free Essays and Term Papers