The Problems Concerning the Principles of Progress The 19th century gave way to some of the most innovative and revolutionary scientific advancements that humanity hasd ever witnessed. These advancements lead to machinery and mechanization that dramatically changed how people in the western civilizations lived. Yet, in light of the improvements, science stirred controversy as it challenged religion and the ideal that humans were fundamentally different from their animal counterparts. Many thought the scientists were overstepping human barriers and researching what should be left to the divine. H.G. Wells observed this dilemma and represented it in his book, The Island of Doctor Moreau. The Island of Doctor Moreau symbolizes the dangers of
Wells describes the corrosive effect that unchecked and rampant scientific progress can have on ethics and morality. Moreau’s disregard for inflicting pain upon the animals and for acting morally embodies what many common people from the Victorian Era feared about scientists. Moreau practiced vivisection, the dissection of still living animals, all for scientific progress: “The creatures I had seen were not men, had never been men. They were animals—humanised animals—triumphs of vivisection.” (Wells 65). By vivisecting animals for scientific discovery, Moreau demonstrates how morality can be abandoned in the wake of scientific progress. The Island of Doctor Moreau also conveys how intellectualism can be morally corrupting. Throughout the story, Moreau justifies his cruel actions by attributing them to science and curiosity: "You cannot imagine the strange colourless delight of these intellectual desires. The thing before you is no longer an animal, a fellow-creature, but a problem." (Wells 69). The Doctor once again shows how in his quest for attaining scientific knowledge he disregards morals and acts inhumanly cruel to the victims of his experimentation. To conclude, The Island of Doctor Moreau is used by H.G. Wells to criticize and expose the lack of morality in some parts of Victorian sciences such as
The scientific and technological advancements of the early 20th century entered people’s daily lives with the intention of bringing the whole of humanity into a brighter, more modern era. However, the darker side of such immense achievement was the increasing encroachment on the previously untouched natural world. Many great minds grew weary of such advances and conveyed their apprehension through the popular literature of the time. The pivotal novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy explores the impact that industrialists with access to technology had on the pastoral countryside and lower classes. Conan Doyle expands on this message in his novel The Hound of the Baskervilles, by examining how the well-educated elite began using science to their advantage, threatening nature in the process. While each novel warns against abusing available technologies, the authors differ in how they believe nature will eventually respond and have incited a debate that has lasted well into the 21st century.
H.G. Wells had gone to the Norman School of Science where he learned biology, chemistry and many other science subjects. In biology, evolution is a major theory that many study and try to know more about. I believe H.G. Wells was very interested in science and being a science-fiction writer applied it in many of his book. In his book, The Island of Dr. Moreau, he uses Darwin’s theory of evolution. I observed that Dr. Moreau’s experiments seem to be an attempt to accelerate evolution. Also, Dr. Moreau said, “‘After all, what is ten years? Men have been a hundred thousand in the making’” (Wells 59).
Deadly and helpful, science is a dual-edged sword. Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the first to emphasize this through his literary works. “Rappaccini's Daughter” and “The Birthmark” are two of his works where he teaches this lesson through the trials of his characters. Focusing on the motif of the “mad scientist”, Hawthorne brings to light the points that people struggle with humanity, learning to love themselves and others, and that science can be more harmful then helpful.
Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals
William Carlos Williams was not the first writer to explore the theme of scientific discovery and practise in literature, but he was one of the first American writers to do so in a positive manner. Works of European gothic literature had cemented the archetype of the mad scientist with figures such as Dr Frankenstein and Dr Moreau; while the birth and subsequent success of Science Fiction in the U.S with the short stories of Edgar Allen Poe show us that the American people also had anxieties regarding the potential of science. It seems expected that Williams, a man who spent most of his professional life practising as a Doctor, would be instrumental in breaking this taboo. In this essay, I shall be examining the way in which Williams and those who followed him chose to depict the scientific world, and how the practices of that world influence the style and structure of their work.
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
The representation of science through science fiction does not accurately represent the behaviors of those involved in Bioengineering who have been shown as unethical, cruel, and heartless. Fictional slander can have lasting real-life consequences on how science and experimentation are perceived by the general public. Peter Weingart “analyzed 222 films” in order to understand perceptions of scientists in more fully. Weingart concluded that “modification of, and intervention into, the human body, the violation of human nature, and threats to human health” had are considered the most threatening and therefore shown most frequently in films. This is in stark contrast to reality where scientists are bound by law to avoid crossing these boundaries. Dr. Neville is not bound by any such laws as there is no authority to enforce
Much of the analysis of the consequences that the scientific perversion of nature harbors is manifested by the inner struggle within both Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. The tortured mind of the creator expresses the notion that one who plays god will be burdened by the excruciating pain of loneliness and uttermost guilt weighing down upon his mind and his creation. Throughout Dr. Frankenstein's struggle, he is overwhelmed by fear, hatred, regret and his culpability in interfering with nature: "a weight of despair and remorse pressed on my heart, which nothing could remove. Sleep fled from my eyes; I wandered like an evil spirit, for I had committed deeds of mischief beyond description horrible" (Shelly 59). Since such sentiments are all expressed in the first person, it allows the reader to more closely sympathize with his pain and moreover makes the message all the more accessible. These themes are not solely portrayed by the doctor, for the sorrow harbored by his creation outweigh even those of his grief-stricken creator.
For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...
Many of this society’s beings regard the physicians that conduct these procedures to my own creator, Dr. Frankenstein. NO ONE will be as disgusting as own daemonic creator. He created me out of obsession. He had a thirst to play with the line of ethical science to create his own being. Dr. Frankenstein was supposed to love and nurture his wretched creation, but he abandoned me as soon as he saw thee. To think I had almost forgiven that mad scientist. I told him to make me a wife, so I would have the Eve to Adam. He accepted and led me to think he was working hard just to make me happy and keep me away from mankind. I was benevolent and good. Misery made me a fiend (Shelley
Mary Shelley’s Sci-Fi horror known as Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus has become a classic novel in history. This dark tale touches on every subject of humanity. One of Shelley’s biggest themes is a big question in the science world we live in, nearly 200 years after publication of the book. That question being can science go too far, is there a line that shouldn’t be crossed? Shelley uses the plot of her story to serve as a warning to readers to be careful when dealing with this imaginary line. Shelley’s tale of a mad scientist and the repercussions he suffers from his experiment is a timeless story. As technology is being pushed to the brink of morality in the modern day, this question has become a huge part of the modern world of science we are living in.
The essay starts off by stating, “One could say that the dominant scientific world-view going into the 16th century was not all that “scientific” in the modern sense of the
Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a time of great change in America. In the mid-nineteenth century, Americans began to experience a shift in focus from the once stringent religious outlook to a more scientific view of the world and its natural wonders. Americans, however, did look at these new scientific discoveries with much hesitation, questioning their long-term effects on society as a whole. Hawthorne’ s work, “The Birth Mark echoes these sentiments and combine natural faith with a confidence in science to make a very interesting tale. This tale and its morality convey a message to the reader that there is a price for tampering with the natural order of things.
In this novel, Shelley focuses on the debate between scientific discoveries, religion and the moral ethics of how far man should pursue his desire for knowledge, which reflects the society of the 19th century’s concern of where the scientific advancements were going similarly to the present day debate on whether stem cell research is valid.
John Locke was one of the philosophers who was fully aware that animals can feel, and he believed anyone that tortures any living thing should be looked down upon to prevent that person doing any harm to society. Nevertheless animals still had no moral existence and physicians kept with their studies on animals. William Harvey (1578-1657) was one of the founder of modern science, he observed the blood flow of small animals and marine life to better understand how blood flows throughout the body (Wolfram Research, 2007). He published a book in where he describes how he discovered that the reason blood flows through the body is by the heart's contractions. His new findings contradict those of Galen ideas fifteen hundred years ago. In the eighteenth century physicians were researching blood pressure, physical respiratory and cardiovascular system. At this time many physicians started to contribute to the public health, and in medicine. Some researchers started to feel guilty about how animals were being treated during their testing, but this still did not stop them from their research and they continued. At the start of this century it had been made public how researchers use animals for their testing, and that is when people started to wonder if this is ethical. By the end of the eighteenth century the philosophers discussed if vivisection was worth the little benefits it gave to human beings in any