Frankenstein Mary Shelley? Frankenstein is filled with various underlying themes, the crux being the effect society has on The Creature? personality. In fact, the ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the ramifications of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science. In literature, Mary Shelley? Frankenstein serves as bio-ethical exhortation for today? technological advances in genetic cloning.

Mary Shelley? Frankenstein provides a clear distinction between the theoretical grandeur of man? ability to scientifically author life and the stark reality, which it encompasses. Shelley prophetically illustrates some of the potential hazards of breaking through the barrier that separates man from God. Her insight allows the reader to trace these reputations through Victor Frankenstein, the monster, and eventually society. The character of Victor Frankenstein illustrates the path of destruction scientists can create when ignoring their moral community. Victor was so impassioned with his life? work that he has lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit. Frankenstein? blinding ambition prevented him from seeing the potential consequences of his actions until it was too late.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The first sign of Victor? fatal flaw of egotism is that he forgets his bond to nature and to the people he loves. ? new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would own their being to me.?(933). His absence of moral judgement is the catalyst for what becomes the demise of the creature, society and ironically himself. It would be years before Victor fully realized that his neglect of moral obligation to the creature and society had unleashed a hideous monster that would eventually destroy his society as revenge for the monster? sense of abandonment. ? shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.?(1000) Frankenstein led by the desire to widen human knowledge finds that fulfillment of his lofty ambition has brought only a curse to mankind.

The monster created by Frankenstein is also an illustration of the embodied consequences of our actions. Mary Shelley uses the monster to show that everything born pure in this world is susceptible to corruption and evil. The gigantic stature of this creature can also be viewed as a symbol of the enormous perils found in creating life outside of natural bounds. Although the creature received a moral and intellectual education, the lack of a nurturing, companionship and acceptance from society led him to reject morality and replace it with evil. ? had cast off all feeling, subdued all anguish, to riot in the excess of my despair.

Evil thenceforth became my good. Urged thus far, I had no choice but to adapt my nature to an element which I had willingly chosen. The completion of my demoniacal design became an insatiable passion.?(1032) The hideous monstrosity goes on to claim his murderous ways are justified because of his inability to find happiness in this human world. ?verywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a friend.? (960). The monster? acts of revenge for his miserable existence displays a cold calculating presence of evil completely devoid of moral decency.

Thought the existence of the creature is unnatural and immoral, the behavior of this hideous monster further escalates the dangers of man playing god. The senseless murder of Victor Frankenstein? friend and family was Mary Shelley? way of suggesting to society that they could all become victims of scientists like Frankenstein, who unnaturally create potential monsters. Until recently, Mary Shelley? Frankenstein was viewed as a brilliant work of fiction, now the messages in her writings warrant substantial consideration from a bio-ethical standpoint. The act of scientists breaching the domain of human creation is no longer confined to fiction. The bio-ethical dilemma that haunted Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley? work of fiction has ironically found its way to modern science. Geneticists are now on the verge of extracting the secret of creating life from human DNA specimens in hopes to artificially recreate human beings.

This biotechnological advancement has come to be known as cloning. Scientists should heed the words of Mary Shelley, because a cloned society could evolve into a race of evil and destruction. Geneticists must also exercise extreme caution in their advancement in genetic cloning because we cannot fully comprehend the detrimental effects it will have on society. The golden rule states that we should ?o unto others as you would have them do unto you? which translates into treating each person as an individual rather than as a means to some end. Under this moral precept we should turn away from human cloning, because it inevitably entails using humans as means to other humans?ends. A utilitarian ethic must be adopted at the expense of individual freedoms when considering Mary Shelley? exhortations in Frankenstein. English Essays.


Frankenstein By Mary Shelly Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein opens with a series of letters from the arctic explorer Robert Walton to his sister Margaret Saville in England. In these letters Walton reveals his Promethean, “machismo” qualities to his sister as he heads, ambition unbridled, into an inhospitable world of ice and sea. Like Victor Frankenstein, whom he meets on the last leg of the journey of horror, Robert Walton writes unhinged from a deeper reason or wisdom. What if, though, we could enter the Frankenstein myth from the point of view of his sister, Margaret? Margaret’s letter to her ambitious brother would give the reader a sense of what Robert’s true nature is and what is fueling his journey. Oh dear brother, I am truly happy for your optimistic forethought’s but yet there is still an itch in my heart that warns me of true danger to this celebrated voyage of your undertaking.

Robert, ever since you were an infant you dreamed of altering the state of humanity. At first you studied the voyages of men like Cartier and Columbus but you grew tired of this and make a liking toward the classics. You say you wished to achieve the mastery of a poem yet even though you intrigued my fancy it was good to compare to that of Homer or Shakespeare, and thus inadequate. And now once again you wish to change the world as we perceive it by discovering the North Pole. Can you not see, Robert, that you only failed at leading the role of the poet because you set the criterion much too high? I can see this happening once again.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

You seem to believe it is fixed fate that you shall rise to the top of the world on an adventurous, yet dangerous journey that could very easily prove to be the demise of you or the elevation of your psyche. Oh, Robert, I mean not to depress your spirits or foretell a dark future. I only mean to see what is the best and most safe for you. Brother, I love you and wish for nothing to ever wrong to fall upon your head yet I cannot simply dismiss this feeling of dread I behold whenever I dream of you sailing off into the cold bitter ice. I’m sorry for bringing up these dark apparitions of my mind but I could not let you go without at least warning you. Do not worry Robert, by most likely circumstances I am dearly wrong and am but fortune-telling like that of a lying gypsy. On a lighter note, I just finished getting published in the London Times an article on the role of women in today’s society.

The publisher enjoyed my work but still wanted to make changes. He thinks that I can be a regular writer for the Times. Isn’t that splendid! Of course, there are the obvious problems of being a women writer and having such fiery opinions on today’s topics. I am going to be a writer and I owe it all to you, Robert. If you had not encouraged me to bring forth my creative power I would have never gotten this far. I thank you brother.

I just hope that the world will know my name like they will know yours. Brother, once again I must warn you against the spectres and demons that you may encounter in your journey to the North. One more word Robert. I read those books in Uncle Tom’s library at times and noticed an article that at times deemed to be interesting but now may be worth to your safety and well being. In the mid 1660’s when the whole search for the pole began the governments around the world spent much time and money searching for the answer to what the climate is like at the top of the world.

They discovered that the pole was cold and rigid. Myth arose of the riches that the pole possessed and many voyages to sent out to find these. The only conclusion these voyagers came upon was that the pole is a place of death and a desolate hell. Robert can you see that the North Pole is not a land of tropic leisure but a frozen death. Once again I could be wrong but even if there is a hint of truth behind what I’ve said then isn’t that enough to question what you are doing? I reiterate that I mean not to curse you with my worries but to only seek what is safest for you.

I must be going now brother. May heaven always send an angel to protect and lead you through life. Good luck in your discovery. Your caring sister, Margaret Saville. Mary Shelly could have easily exchanged the positions of the author, Robert Walton, with the receiver, Margaret, of these numerous letters in the introduction of Frankenstein.

The influence that this new author would have on the story could have greatly changed the tone at which the story was perceived. Margaret would be responding in perhaps a more “feminine” way to what happened to her brother and also the overall mood that encompasses the Frankenstein story. The reader would perhaps see the “animal” as not a killer but a mistreated and misunderstood creature. Blame could then be brought upon his creator for abandoning his creation and for not even giving the “creature” a chance. The author’s sensitivity would influence how the story would be told and great detail would be placed on the loveless world that life was created upon. More emotion would come to this story and would have possibly caused the various movies to focus on this rather than a psychotic murderer.


I'm Lydia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out