The novel Frankenstein is a story of ethical dilemmas. The most obvious one, of course, is that of
creating life. The novel explores the
potential consequences of humans using technology to create a living creature
from scratch. However, there are other,
equally profound ethical issues presented by the book. One of these is humans’ treatment of and
moral obligations to other living creatures, as well as to each other and
ourselves. This is exemplified by Victor
Frankenstein’s choices with how to treat his creation, a monstrous human-like
living being. The monster may seem like
an evil, heartless brute at times due to the havoc he wreaks and murders he commits,
however his violence is in actuality a result of his reeling against the
immense pain and isolation he feels for being an outcast from society because of
who he is. Victor at first abandons the
monster when he sees the hideousness of what he has created, initiating these
feelings in the monster. Later on in the
story, Victor is confronted with the consequences of his creating and rejecting
the monster, and must decide how to deal with them and whether to even help
him, particularly when the monster demands that he make a new, female creature
for him to have as a companion (Shelley).
Victor’s challenges and decisions with how to treat the monster raise
ethical questions of whether or not he has some type of moral obligation to
help the creature. And these ultimately raise broader questions of what it means
to act morally in the first place.
There are two basic
arguments for the nature of Victor’s obligation to the monster. First, that he
has an obligation to him, and it would be ethically right for him to help the monster
in some way. And second, He has no obligation to the monster, and there is no
ethical reason for him to help the creature.
The answer could be argued on a variety of different grounds. For example, there may be a special moral
responsibility one has to something living that one creates. Or it could be argued that the monster either
is or is not intelligent and capable enough to care for himself without having
someone responsible for his wellbeing.
These are all important
things to consider, however they are ultimately irrelevant to the question of
whether Victor has an obligation to the monster. This is because, when we talk about moral
obligations, there is no point at which someone does not have an obligation to
another being. As long as there is a
potential for one being to have any type of effect on another being’s
experience, they have a moral obligation to them; that is an obligation to
simply act morally towards that other being.
Victor has the obligation to act in a moral fashion towards the monster,
whatever that may specifically mean.
If it is true that
every living being has a moral obligation to every other living being, then
there are two questions that naturally arise and should be answered about this
concept. First, there is the question of what it means to be a “living being”. There are lots of forms of life and things
that have been considered “alive”; however in the realm of ethics, the only
life that really matters is anything that has the ability to experience
positive and/or negative feelings, and whose experience may be altered by the
actions of particular living beings.
This can, of course, never be proven in a creature, however there are
forms of life that are generally assumed to have or not have this quality. For
example, humans and other animals are typically assumed to have this, while
plants are not. Although it is never
stated exactly how Victor’s monster is created or what he is made from, the
book seems to want us to assume that he is every bit the same as a human in
this respect.
The second question is
what exactly it means to act morally.
Many philosophies have defined moral behavior by the nature of the
intentions of the person committing the actions. Here, a person may have good intentions that
seek to do “good” unto others, or bad intentions that seek to do “bad” unto
others (Driver). This is problematic,
however, because there is no such thing as a truly “bad” intention. It is in the inherent nature of living beings
to always want the most moral outcome to occur in any situation. It makes no sense for anybody to wish an
undesired outcome on themselves, and likewise a living being will always wish
the most desired outcome on those around them.
It may not always seem like
this, however this is simply because a person’s concept of what is morally
right is very often misguided. For
example, a person may unjustly attempt to cause harm to another person, but
this is simply because they feel morally justified in their actions and do not
fully understand the suffering they are causing in the other person. This definition also doesn’t address what “good”
and “bad” really mean.
The best definition of
moral actions, and therefore our obligation to living beings has been described
in the philosophy of utilitarianism, one of the most important ethical concepts
to be used by thinkers throughout history.
The general idea of utilitarianism is that the most “moral” or “good”
action is the one that produces the greatest positive effect among all parties
involved (Driver). I would describe it
specifically as the action that creates the greatest overall positive effect among
the experiences of all living beings that have the potential to be affected by
an action. What this means is that our
obligation to other living beings is to act the most morally in this sense as
possible.
Even with this general
rule, it can still be very difficult to determine what the best action to take
is, and there is still much room for ethical debate on many issues. Victor struggles greatly with determining
what action will have the best effect among everyone around him, but ultimately
he makes many rational decisions. For
example, when the monster demands he make him a female companion, he eventually
decides that it’s not a good idea.
Though he does have an obligation to help the monster in some way, he
know that creating another monster could be extremely dangerous to himself and
other people, possibly even resulting in the breeding of even more
monsters. By considering the overall effect on everyone involved, he is
able to make a rational moral decision (even though this eventually leads to the
monster murdering several others out of rage) (Shelley).
Like Victor, our task
is to rationally weigh out the potential positive and negative effects of our
actions on other living beings, as well as ourselves, in order to determine
what is morally best. Luckily, as
inherently moral beings, this is what our minds will always attempt to do
anyway, and it seems indicative that we are getting better at this as a species
as we increase in intelligence and overall interconnectedness with one another.
Works Cited
Driver, Julia. "The History of Utilitarianism." The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. N.p., 2014. Web.
Nov. 2015.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Lackington, Hughes,
Harding, Mavor, and Jones, 1818. The Project Gutenberg. Web. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment