Nature Vs Nurture Frankenstein Research Paper

1567 Words4 Pages

Are parents responsible for their children's misdeeds if they were not involved in their lives, could it be that the lack of involvement ties fault to themselves? In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, otherwise known as the modern Prometheus, she explores the extensively complex concept of nature versus nurture. A concept which has been a major debate in the world of psychology for centuries, as in simple terms it argues whether the way someone acts is the result of their innate characteristics that they received upon birth or their development which is constituted by both their environment and upbringing. Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, however, none truly stand as a testimony that either side is objectively the answer. With …show more content…

Then Victor Frankenstein delves into his journey of giving life to the non-living and then the consequences that arose as a result. To which, the last narrator, Frankenstein's creation is also presented by having him explain his life following Victor abandoning him. All of this ties into the grand theme of nature versus nurture as throughout the novel, Victor's "monster" will commit a plethora of crimes including murder, arson, and framing an innocent person. To which a particular question arises. Are these sins the result of the creature's nature or the nurture he received? With this in mind, it is without question that the crimes the creation will ultimately go on to commit are primarily the result of the nurture it experienced through Victor's lack of guidance along with his continued resentment of the being, society's rejection of the creation, and evidence which demonstrates that the creature was initially of a kind …show more content…

Therefore, the crimes it will go on to commit trace back their rationale to a point in its life where its only rationale was derived from its nature rather than nurture. Despite there being truth to the understanding, those same advocates fail to recognize that this inadvertently contradicts their argument since the creature was originally of a kind nature. During that period in which he was alone and having increasingly disappointing interactions with people, he would always exhibit his kind nature. For example, the previously mentioned family he was examining was the De Lacey family, which were poor and struggling. After having made note of that, the being had taken it upon himself to help out the family without incentive by collecting firewood for them throughout the night. Then, after having been chased out of the De Lacey home when he showed himself to them, he stumbled across a drowning girl in a nearby river, to which he then instinctively, or in other words by nature, had chosen to save. Clearly, these are all acts of compassion that the supposed "monster" had done out of his nature. All of this is to say that the being's nature could not have been the primary motivator for his sins since his proven nature was one of kindness

Open Document