Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
...ed, and becomes lonelier and more alienated from society. It is at this that eventually changes him from a kind, affectionate, and reasonable being, to a bitter murderer. This corresponds to our society which has shifted from one of acceptance to the individual as a member to one of enforced oppression, which prompted the individual to attempt to escape society's influence. We can see the relationship to two relativism: ‘cultural relativism’ and ‘moral relativism’. In social science, “cultural relativism refers to a research stance and method that begins with the understandings of a community, actor, or some other social unit.” It means the actors involved in interpreting the social action. Moral relativism “is the position that there should be no universally upheld values, such as United Nations- sanctioned lists of human rights.” In my personal view, I see them both together, where the Monster and Frankenstein are the actors, and those people who isolate the Monster as the community in the movie. Frankenstein has the responsibility to understand the consequences after he made his creature, and he should consider whether it is fair to the Monster or not, born with no parents and even left by his creator afterwards. In reality, actors are the scientists and their experimental products, we represent the community, we should respect the decision of scientists while giving opinion, but the scientists should also understand our human rights. This will then be discussed thoroughly in the essay where I write about ethics and moral values. Frankenstein is seen as a portrait of all those scientific over-achievers who give no heed to the ethics of their experimentations, and Frankenstein's creature as the representation all those victims who have to live with the effects. And some of the science seen in the movie has become more possible and more likely in recent years, whilst some is still fantasy. It also serves as an illustration of the 'other-ness' (other side of a human) which is hidden within every person and contains the elements of destruction, ostracism, and lonely solitude. Humans have within their grasp the ability and technology to create life. Many believe that this knowledge will lead to further degradation of the human spirit. But others, like Prometheus and his gift of fire, believe that new technology is the key to a new, and better, reality. A few years ago, genetic engineering and, specifically, cloning, of human life has become an issue of extreme gravity in the age of technology where anything may be dreamed and many things are possible. Like Frankenstein and his creation, is Man playing God? And what are the unforeseen consequences? This is the time for us to examine the moral questions that must be faced as the current society deals with the reality of cloning and compares this situation with Mary Shelley's story of Frankenstein. There are argues that science and technology should serve man, not the other way around, and ethics should always present a higher priority than the lure of scientific discovery. The creature is made because of Frankenstein’s interest, which corresponds to the Hess text, that ‘the world is made or constructed rather than discovered.’ Nowadays, scientists and the society as a whole are more interested not in exploring nature but building a new artificial substitute for nature. The Monster created is just like an orphan, without parents, with no one to care about him. Such as those clones, the sheep Dolly, luckily it is just an animal. If a human is cloned, what will happen? Who is going to take the responsibility to earn his living? Who is going to take the position to be his guardians? What will that human’s future be? Yet, it also related to another philosophical position from Hess text: ‘conservative constructivism’, where social interests and cultural values also shape scientific theories in some way. Like in the story, when the Monster walked into the village, people are scared and ran away from him, some of them even threw stones to him. Are all scientific experiments acceptable by the public? The pressure from the public ultimately stressed the scientists. Having this relates to the above moral matter, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a very good story which can be an admonition for our modern scientists, think about the acceptance of the experiments before starting their work. On the other hand, the new fruits of chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. were seen as contributing to a future in which increasing knowledge would give increasing power over nature, and consequently increasing wealth. Mary Shelley recognized this danger and foresaw the perils of the newly born technological society, inherent in scientific research and the exploitation of nature. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, in terms of its larger social significance, hints at topics as far-ranging as the ethics of men playing God, to the importance of a father's role in the rearing of children, to the tragedy of imperialism -- all within the relati...