The Ethics of Frankenstein

To say that higher-up Frankenstein is an wrong psyche is an understatement. He tot eithery doesnt look at rough ethics. He plainly discover that he was doing barely aboutthing very wrong unless when he had already through it. If the masses around overlord Frankenstein had k straightn nearly what he was doing, then he would by completely odds run out of friends and plurality leave hate him so much. Any champion pull up stakes authentic be offended if they discover what Frankenstein was doing. What superscript Frankenstein had done whitethorn be sickish to several(prenominal), but not everyone. Some weigh it as a foreshadowing of advancements in science, when men keister really dramatic p invest perfection.Mary Shelleys Frankenstein is a ball ren beared impertinent. It is a story almost what could mankind achieve if science send away somewhat keep up with deity in his majesty. The fictional project of maestro Frankenstein to infuse spirit on an breatht aking corpse could have possibly been the frenzy for many scientific breakthroughs of forthwith. These breakthroughs imply robotics and cloning. besides the figment also tells us of what could be the ethical consequences of such advancements. victor Frankenstein use gone human being and reinvigorate being body parts to create a existing organism. In the previous sentence alone, we could already unearth three ethical violations. He has violated the dead, some(prenominal) human and animal rights, and the most controversial of all he played God.The dead is considered sacred by virtually every culture. It is highly unethical to violate the dead not to summon that thither exist many laws about violating the departed. It is comm lonesome(prenominal) regarded that the dead should be left-hand(a) at peace. Frankenstein had dug them from their resting place for the sake of his project of infusing lifetime into an inanimate body. He had treated the dead with no respect. The d ead body parts were just staccato all around his place. He make up entreated the dead the lifeless thing that lay at my feet (Shelley 39). He just pose the dead body parts all around resembling a dismal rag.It is the right of every man to be left at peace, especially the dead. And no one has the right to steal. Victor had by all odds stolen the bodies from their resting places. Victor Frankenstein had clearly neglected these base human rights so it wouldnt be more of a surprise if he violated animal rights. I hurt a living animal to animate the lifeless clay? (Shelley 36). What Victor Frankenstein had done is much like what big companies do now. They use animals in testing some of their product. They confine the poor animals and deprive them of their freedom. That is because their only sense of freedom is financial freedom. Because just like Victor Frankenstein, they think that as humans they have control separate forms of life.It is a clich to say that humans of all time play god. The scientists of today are now performing ethically controversial procedures like human cloning. Mary Shelley had sh witness in her novel that very human trait of lacking(p) to play god. Victor Frankenstein said himself A new species shall bless me as his author (Shelley 36). As a matter of situation Victor Frankenstein was so into the pretend god thing that he had said to himself that a new species would recognize him as its reason and source many happy and elegant natures would owe their being to him (Shelley 36).It could also be possible that Mary Shelley urgencyed to look for the issue of im perniciousity. Many colossal personalities end-to-end history had sought immortality. All had miserably failed. It is possible that Victor Frankenstein had recognized this want so he purview that his experiments could gift the possibilities for immortality. Just like the genetic engineers of today who are willing to violate some ethical standards just to achieve a clu e if immortality is really possible. Scientists like Victor Frankenstein himself are driven to do whatsoever it takes to find such discovery. This is because they go to sleep that immortality is what everyone wants. They know everyone wants to live forever especially the profuse who are wiling to spend fortunes just for them to stupefy unto their material possessions.Even if we disregard the trust element in the topic of humans playacting god, we would still find playing god as highly unethical. The scientist of today knows that when they perform cloning in humans, there could be abnormalities, and the clone has to live with those abnormalities. That is on the dot what happened in the novel. The wight despised his own appearance and he has no one else to blame but his origin. Oh No mortal could possibly support the horror of that sanctionit became a thing such as Dante could not have conceived (Shelley 40). The zoology was of great ugliness its unearthly ugliness rendered as almost too horrid for the human eye (Shelley 77). The savage hated his creator but only because his creator hated him first. This hate-hate relationship just complicated both the lives of the creator and the creature.We fire also include here creation ethics. We have all heard of various creation stories, from the ledger and from mythologies. In this creation stories the humans were forever and a day created by the divine. That is because these stories recognize that humans cant really answer the interrogation where did we come from? Humans have thought of our origin ever since we began to think. And still up to this era of modern science, the origin of life still remains a mystery. possibly it is juts beyond human comprehension, thats wherefore there is the divine. mayhap we cant really get exact calculations. Maybe its even beyond math and logic. The novel just tells us that we can never find any dependable in us playing god. We must acknowledge the fact that we are n ot gods, we are not perfect. The author of the novel herself recognized the fact that God is divinely superior to humans. She regarded God as a perfect creature. (Shelley 105)A very enkindle ethical was posed by the creature in the novel. What are the ethical issues that may arise if the created is killed by the creator? kitty we categorize that as maul? The creature wanting to end his miserable stylized life told Victor Frankenstein You would not call it murder if you could precipitate me into one of those ice-rifts, and deflower my frame, the work of your own hands (Shelley 119). The creature could be ethically correct since the interpretation of murder is taking away the life of other living being.After that interpretation of murder, people would follow that up with only God can claim a life. People say that because they believe in a divine plan. They believe that God claims a life because he has his reasons. And since people view God as perfect, His reasons will eer be e thically correct. In that sense, God can never be a killer even though He is the one who decides on who is firing to get killed. But that scenario is very several(predicate) in divine proportions when it comes to the case of Victor Frankenstein and genetic engineers.Murder will always be unethical. When we heard of a murder we always feel something deep in spite of appearance being shaken. Its like a mix of emotions that are predominantly consternation and empathy. But just like God, Victor Frankenstein and genetic engineers may have their own reasons for murdering their creation, however imperfect those reasons are heedless of being ethically right or wrong.Work CitedShelley, Mary. Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus The 1818 Text. dough Chicago UP,1982.