Over thousands of years, creating life is a divine power of God, giving people the right to be born and live. However, many scientists have attempted to play the role of God for the pursuit of knowledge in the scientific world by cloning or in-vitro fertilization, stirring up many encounters of moral dilemmas and ethical debates. In the book Frankenstein, Mary Shelley has captured this controversial concern by portraying Doctor Frankenstein’s enthusiasm of chasing the dangerous knowledge, which becomes a heated discussion of morality for readers and evaluators. Although Frankenstein is established 1818, Mary Shelley’s concerns about scientific progress are still relevant to the modern day of the scientific world. Frankenstein’s quest for scientific …show more content…
In contrast, the idea of in-vitro fertilization is also about creating life, but this modern-day parallel is more beneficial to humanity. With the growth of our modern society, scientists have found the way to help people who can't have babies due to fertility issues or same-sex couples: in-vitro fertilization, also called test-tube conception, medical procedure in which mature egg cells are removed from a woman, fertilized with male sperm outside the body, and inserted into the uterus of the same or another woman for normal gestation. (Britannica). The benefit of in-vitro fertilization to women those have the disability is utterly priceless. Not only bring to women the right to give birth, many single mothers can also have babies of their own with the help of sperm donors, resulting wanted babies without the genetic diseases or handicap. However, many Christians oppose the concept of in-vitro fertilization acidly, because they prefer the natural ways which God has given to mankind in the very beginning. Since God is the only one who has the divine power to create life, some people go against that scientific method and criticize scientists as they have been imitating God’s action. Frankly, God has given the knowledge of using
Works Cited Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Ed. J. Paul Hunter. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 1996.
New medications are discovered daily. However, had Mary Shelly's proposition of "playing god" been a reality in the late 18th century, and had Victor Frankenstein been able to take this dramatic shortcut in the slow process of evolution by creating life from death, the crisis between the church and science would have been decidedly against science. Such were the sentiments of Victor's headmaster at Ingolstadt, as well as the rest of the European scientific community. Frankenstein's intentions were good. He had wanted to rid the world of genetic defects and bacterial disease by creating the perfect man. He would do so by applying electricity to the polar regions of a body, which he had constructed from pieces of freshly executed villains, while submerging them in an elemental pool of life. However, he was so driven towards his goal that he never considered the consequences of his actions. He was in many ways acting like the benefactor of Jurassic Park, hastily creating a life form without consideration of possible detriments. When Frankenstein had created his monster, he didn't know what to do with it and immediately wished it dead, but ironically he had made it so strong that it would not die.
When the novel “Frankenstein”, by Mary Shelley came out in 1831 the general public was introduced to the idea of man creating another man, scientifically without the use of reproduction. The disasters that followed, in the novel, demonstrated the horrid fact that creating humans was not natural. That was in 1831, when the knowledge of science had not yet evolved enough to act on such an idea. Now as the start of a new millenium approaches, having the capability to scientifically produce one human who is genetically identical to another, or cloning a human, has a lot of people questioning weather or not it is our moral right to do such a thing. It is a classic debate between principles of science and principles of religion.
The period during which Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein there were many scientific developments in the world, that contributed to the gothic genre of her novel as well as the author’s personal experiences. The main scientific development that possibly may have inspired the author to produce a gothic novel is similar to Luigi Galvani’s experiment, during which Galvani observed the relationship between electricity and life. In chapter four, Shelley has mentioned the scientific improvement that occurred during the 19th century: “when I considered the improvement which every day takes place in science and mechanics”.
Since the beginning of time man has been infatuated with the idea of pushing the human body to its limits by the use of science. The Space program is the best example of science helping humans accomplish things never before thought possible. In the age of technology and scientific advancement ideas that once seemed like science fiction, for example people walking on the moon, are now a reality. In order to push human development, ethics and morals have been pushed to the side. Necessary evils have been accepted as part of science without a second thought. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, plays God by creating a monster out of body parts and bringing it to life. When Frankenstein realizes the full extent to what he’s done, he abandons the monster leaving it confused and lonely. The monster then
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is more than just a regular novel. It is a book that conveys a deep philosophical message. The novel moved me to my very soul. It turned out to be a book not about an encounter against a monster but a misfortune of a scientist, who reached the goal of his work and life and realized that breathless horror and disgust filled his heart but all of these is on the surface. The inmost philosophical thought is covered and hidden, but is very profound. The author tries to say that life is a gift. After this gift is given no one can take it away and it transforms the accountability of the creator. The novel makes the reader anxious with the question: “Is a human being able to take obligation to provide life?”
In today’s world of genetically engineered hearts and genetically altered glowing rats, the story of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, seems as if it could be seen in the newspapers in our near future. The discoveries seen in modern science, as well as in the novel, often have controversy and negative consequences that follow them, the biggest of which being the responsibility the creator of life has to what has been created. Victor Frankenstein suffers from a variety of internal and external conflicts stemming from the creation of his monster, which in return also experiences similar problems. Shelley uses these tumultuous issues to portray the discrepancies between right and wrong, particularly through romanticism and the knowledge of science.
The popular 1931 version of Frankenstein, based on Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, depicts an anti-exploration and anti-intellectual philosophy. In Frankenstein there are criticisms for the immoral behavior that is involved with progress, the natural tendency for humanity to attempt to be greater than God and the pursuit of knowledge. Frankenstein, the doctor, aims to create a man in his own image. His personal ambitions drove him mad and into isolation. He leaves school in pursuit of better facilities and free rein to test, create and revise.
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 generate something potentially even more dangerous and horrifying with implications that could endanger the entire world and human population.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a nineteenth century literary work that delves into the world of science and the plausible outcomes of morally insensitive technological research. Although the novel brings to the forefront several issues about knowledge and sublime nature, the novel mostly explores the psychological and physical journey of two complex characters. While each character exhibits several interesting traits that range from passive and contemplative to rash and impulsive, their most attractive quality is their monstrosity. Their monstrosities, however, differ in the way each of the character’s act and respond to their environment. Throughout Frankenstein, one assumes that Frankenstein’s creation is the true monster. While the creation’s actions are indeed monstrous, one must also realize that his creator, Victor Frankenstein is also a villain. His inconsiderate and selfish acts as well as his passion for science result in the death of his friend and family members and ultimately in his own demise.
Since a boy, Frankenstein’s passion is to explore science and that which cannot be seen or understood in the field. He spent the later part of his childhood reading the works of commonly outdated scientists whose lofty goals included fantastic, imaginative desires to “penetrate the secrets of nature” (Vol. 1, Ch. 2). While he was told that these authors predated more real and practical scientists, he became intrigued by their ambitions, and devoted himself to succeeding where they had failed. When Victor is criticized at college for his previous studies in obsolete research, he takes after one of his professors, M. Waldman, in studying chemistry. In a lecture, Waldman tells of ancient teachers in chemistry who promised miracles and sought after “unlimited powers” (Vol. 1...
With the advancement of technology and science, we are now able to genetically modify animals. Mary Shelley found a way to make science an epitome, and confirms what could happen if science is taken too far. In conclusion, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is considered to be a historical novel, based on scientific advancements. In this novel Shelley depicts her own definition of human nature, by showing the creature and the ways that humans react to him. The novel also showed the differences between morality and science.
Frankenstein is a young scientist who is blinded by the fame and dangers of the knowledge of creation. "So much has been done," exclaims Frankenstein after he hears a lecture on famous scientists. "More, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unk...
Frankenstein has been interested in natural science since childhood and has described himself to “always have been imbued with a fervent longing to penetrate the secrets of nature”(Shelley 25), which foreshadows his future aspiration to create life, and
Frankenstein, in his Faustian quest for knowledge, comes to symbolise ‘the man of science’ within the text. His family background and social position places him as a man of the enlightenment. It is therefore arguable that Frankenstein represents the empirical strand of Enlightenment science and thus his quest for knowledge symbolises a large push for scientific knowledge in the 19th century. However, Shelly portrays Frankenstein’s project as defiling nature. This is seen in Frankenstein’s assemblage of the creature.