Dominika Panek
Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein (1818), examines the ethical challenges inherent in scientific progress. Victor Frankenstein becomes obsessed with his power to create life, losing track of his moral senses. Audiences today might recognize the correlation between the novel’s monster and modern-day destructive technology. According to Shelley, there must be a balance between conservative and progressive approaches toward science. If one is too conservative, less innovation may occur. However, if one is too progressive, an unethical manipulation of nature can result in unacceptable moral consequences. In this way, Frankenstein is a cautionary morality tale warning about the dangers of an amoral progressive attitude towards technology.
Manipulation of nature can have positive consequences on society, as shown in Frankenstein’s early stages of Victor’s character development. Victor demonstrates an excellent knowledge of science. His intellect stems from genuine curiosity, regardless of whether he has good or bad intentions. However, this curiosity leads to Victor’s corruption of the human mind’s righteous principles. Kim Hammond, quoting Marina Warner, asserts that “the tale-of-perverted-science interpretation misses Shelley’s ‘much more urgent message’ – ‘that a man might make a monster in his image and then prove incapable of taking responsibility’” (182). Victor, the protagonist, represents humanity as a whole. Hammond explains how Victor brought it upon himself to fail, even though his intentions might have been good (190). Victor reveals that being careless with intellectual ideas can emotionally scar a person. His blind determination to gain knowledge leads to making mistakes, and his errors are a result of the absence of accountability for his own actions.
Nevertheless, he should not be held accountable for nature’s unpredictable outcomes. As much as Victor controls the experiment, he cannot control life after the monster forms. Even though Victor’s curiosity and scientific progress help society move forward, humanity cannot control nature’s forces. For example, the danger of attempting to control these forces results in the physical deformities and mental anguish that the monster experiences. Despite Victor’s initial intention to create a being that can improve society, his lack of consideration for the ethical implications of his creation ultimately leads to the monster’s suffering. The monster initially seeks love and acceptance but is rejected by society and becomes for the reader a symbol of the dangers of playing with nature. Additionally, Victor’s pursuit of scientific knowledge and control ultimately leads to his downfall. His obsession with creating life drives him to neglect his relationships and responsibilities, leading to isolation and despair. These factors underscore the idea that humanity cannot fully control the forces of nature and that attempting to do so can result in tragic consequences. While the pursuit of scientific knowledge and progress can benefit society, it is essential to consider the ethical implications of such advancements. Victor’s creation of the monster ultimately demonstrates that even with the best intentions, humanity cannot fully control or predict the consequences of its actions.
Furthermore, Victor’s low self-esteem causes him to search for affirmation through knowledge. Victor is intelligent enough to comprehend scientific ideas, yet he does not possess solid psychological capabilities, for example, using logic in deliberating a plan for the monster’s well-being. The lack of a healthy mind causes Victor difficulty in considering the outcome of putting scientific theory into practice. Daniel Cottom proposes that Frankenstein illustrates a moral lesson: “in seeking to represent himself, man makes himself a monster. Or, to put it in other words: Frankenstein’s monster images the monstrous nature of the representation” (60). Through seeking knowledge, Victor tries to better understand himself, but he hesitates. Victor’s self-doubt causes his sense of worth to diminish, and his ability to consider the consequences of his actions is impaired. His creativity and analytical mind remain strong throughout the process of his creation. However, his inability to consider other possibilities leads to his creation becoming a monster. This process is exemplified in Frankenstein when Victor says, “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (38). Victor’s initial excitement and passion for his creation turn into hate and disgust once he realizes the consequences of his actions. Victor’s lack of several things, including a moral compass, a consideration of potential consequences of his actions, a clear vision of the future, and an internal motivation to continue his work, all lead to his downfall and self-destruction.
While Victor’s lack of a moral compass and self-destructive tendencies lead to his downfall, the novel also presents the contrasting character of the monster, an inherently good being more curious to explore the world than to destroy it. In the novel, the monster reflects on his experiences and desires, saying, “I desired love and fellowship, and I was still spurned. Was there no injustice in this? Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me?” (166-67). These words demonstrate that the monster is not inherently evil. We see that he desires acceptance and companionship and that his actions result from his rejection by and isolation from society rather than a desire to cause harm. If society had welcomed the monster, Victor’s work would have been a success. Theodore Ziolkowski shows how the monster’s solitary achievements are more self-nurture than nature, including how the monster “learn[s] to talk by observing a family from his hideaway, how he educate[s] himself by studying the literary classics, and how his attempts to enter human society by means of kind deeds [are] always repulsed by people horrified at his savage appearance” (41). The monster has no previous genetic or biological factors to cause him to do evil because he was created from dead organs and chemicals. Victor makes the creature out of human parts, but he is not considered part of the human species because he has come from a lifeless body. The monster’s negative experience highlights the consequences of societal rejection on an individual’s development and actions: the monster’s inherently good nature is impaired by this rejection. If society would accept the creation, he would be nurtured into peacefully co-existing with humankind.
Shelley creates Victor with no self-awareness, suggesting how even the most knowledgeable and wisest people in society cannot foresee the consequences of interfering with nature’s forces. Through acting out of pure self-interest to gain knowledge, Victor disconnects from his true self. He moves away from the core values that build a strong, positive character, such as humility and service to others. Claire Stubber and Maggie Kirkman propose that “Frankenstein serves as both a vessel of past concerns about hubris and a foreshadowing of the possibilities of new technologies” (31). Victor’s ego shields him from having to confront the truth of his work, the horror his experiment has brought into the world. He cannot accept moral failure because his scientific research is the core of his sense of individualism. As his sense of self becomes more robust, he becomes more disconnected from society. Victor’s need for knowledge also stems from the need to find the truth. “‘Truth’ is an inadequate concept to set against ‘myth.’ There are inexplicable events that defy science and logic; mythology reflects attempts to understand, explain, reify, and codify these existential dilemmas” (Stubber and Kirkman 32). However, unable to accurately see himself and his actions, Victor misses the truth. Ethically, it is essential to understand what is happening in the present moment and to be able to predict future outcomes of the given situation, but Victor has too much pride in himself, leading to the tragic consequences of his hubris.
Throughout the novel, society’s disapproval causes the creature to become a monster. However, this disapproval of the monster’s appearance, as well as a disapproval of Victor’s godlike role as the creator, ultimately reflects the dangers of unchecked scientific ambition and the responsibility of wielding such power. Victor sees the boundaries of life and death as imaginary. Furthermore, he thinks that any being he brings back to life will owe its existence to him (35). Although Victor momentarily feels disgusted by his actions, he does not end the experiment and crosses the moral boundary of bringing the dead back to life. As Josh Bernatchez notes, the “interrogation demands of the Creature that he betray himself—confess, against his aspirations for self-creation, virtue, and recognition, that ‘I am a monster.’ This verbal component of torture played out in Frankenstein is, effectively, a naming contest” (207). Even if individuals hold to a standard, the public’s perception may differ. Victor’s carelessness in planning his ideas is dangerous, and his actions have a negative effect. In this way, Frankenstein is a morality tale because it highlights the importance of responsible innovation and ethical considerations when pursuing advancement in science and technology.
Frankenstein remains relevant today because humans struggle with their relationship to scientific technology. With current scientific advancements in biotechnology, humans have begun manipulating human genomes through genetic engineering. For example, scientists, working with germline editing, are experimenting with eugenics, which can potentially eliminate any defects and undesirable traits in fetuses. These modern-day practices are evident in the novel, as Victor similarly manipulates and selects biological factors that suit his vision (Hammond 182). Modern scientists continue to worry if this process is a danger to society. Even though this innovative technology seems to streamline the progression of science in society, it can also have negative consequences if it falls into the wrong hands. Frankenstein teaches the dangers of what could happen if scientists overstep certain scientific and ethical boundaries.
Bibliography
Beck, Urlich. “Politics of Risk Society.” The Politics of Risk Society, Jane Franklin, editor, Polity P, 1998, pp. 9-22.
Bernatchez, Josh. “Monstrosity, Suffering, Subjectivity, and Sympathetic Community in Frankenstein and ‘The Structure of Torture.’” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, July 2009, pp. 205–16. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40649956.
Cottom, Daniel. “Frankenstein and the Monster of Representation.” SubStance, vol. 9, no. 3, 1980, pp. 60–71. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3683905.
Hammond, Kim. “Monsters of Modernity: Frankenstein and Modern Environmentalism.” Cultural Geographies, vol. 11, no. 2, Apr. 2004, pp. 181–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44250971.
Hunter, J. Paul, ed. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Norton Critical Edition, 3rd edition, Norton, 2021.
Stubber, Claire, and Maggie Kirkman. “The Persistence of the Frankenstein Myth: Organ Transplantation and Surrogate Motherhood.” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 99, no. 1, 2016, pp. 29–53. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/soundings.99.1.0029.
Warner, Marina Managing Monsters: Six Myths of Our Time: The Reith Lectures, Vintage, 1994.
Ziolkowski, Theodore. “Science, Frankenstein, and Myth.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 89, no. 1, Winter 1981, pp. 34–56. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27543797.