To be, or not to be, that is the Question
By: Brooke Redlich
If something thinks like a human, has humanistic qualities, learns like a human, and has all the body parts like a human, does that make it a human? Is it the soul of something that makes it a human? In Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" she creates a character of debate. The Monster is an 'it' that is just like a person, but is rejected by society due to its disturbing appearance. In class, we debated heavily on the question of would you consider the Monster a human or not. If something has a soul does it make it a human? I believe that the Monster is to be considered a human based on his emotional needs and desires just like another human-being. Yes, biologically he was not made by a sperm and egg, but he does feel just like another person would. Not every person ends up murdering people out of revenge, but it is the fact of the Monster having this emotion of revenge that makes him a person. I think an animal in the wild would have the capacity to kill another animal if feeling threatened, but it would not seek out a specific threat in order to get revenge on it or something else.
Revenge, confusion, lust, interpretation, anger and frustration are all humanistic qualities the Monster displayed. Just because he looks uncanny, does not mean he should not be treated like any other person. He was made to be like a human, and like a human he should be treated. If it was not for his abandonment, I think that the Monster would not be so gruesome. If he would have been taught how to adapt into human society he would have been a character of praise. Praise is an over statement because of coarse anything new at first is looked upon as being a risk into society. But eventually, I think that Frankenstein's creation could have made him famous and his work stimulating to other scientists.
His work can be related to cloning in our present day. I do not agree with human cloning, but the fact that science has come so far to be able to create life without sexual reproduction is astonishing yet frightening. If the science can be controlled I believe it should be alright to prosper on with experimentation, but that is the problem. Can we put the trust of one man, or many men or women, to act as God figures without taking it to an extreme level which could be devastating?
""The ancient teachers of this science," said he, "promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted, and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pour over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature, and shew how she works in her hiding places. They ascent into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows (28),"" this quote to me is the definition of the curiosity I feel for the science that Frankenstein studied, but also the fear of why today in our society it could be disastrous.
Human or not a human, is mocking human life right or wrong? We all have our own opinions on these subjects, and with Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" we can begin a debate upon this realistic, nonfictional tale.
