As soon as the essay questions were first introduced to us
on the previous Wednesday class, I knew I needed to write my blog post about
the various scientific criticisms to which both Frankenstein and The
Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, were being subject. The main idea
that many could argue is that science was immorally used. Guided by their own
ambitions, Victor and Dr. Jekyll lost all sense of proportion.
From a non-scientific point of view, I would readily agree
that bringing dead matter to life or altering a living being is morally
untenable.
The truth is that our society is in need of such
experiments. Isn't the human race evolving through knowledge and research? Well
it seems to me that without trial and error, and without ego and 'self', there would be no real
pursuit of knowledge and achievement.
Mary Shelley would likely have agreed with this notion since
she used the analogy of Prometheous in the writing of her work, Frankenstein.
The mythology is of a Greek character who stole the fire of Zeus and gave
it to the human race. In the eyes of the gods, it seemed like a traitorous act,
on the other hand, in the evolution of mankind it was an essential ingredient.
Although there is a mix of good and bad in the exploration
of science, there are some instances so horrendous and extreme that it is
difficult to discern any value whatever in such efforts. More often than not,
the results are flawed. A terrible but relevant example would be the ghastly
devilry of a Dr. Mengele during World War II.
The line may be sometimes blurred and each instance must be
examined on its merits.
How would you define the line of the unacceptable? (If there
is such a line)
No comments:
Post a Comment