Ethics

Mary Shelley (1797-1851) was herself a philosopher of some repute, her novel Frankenstein is a masterpiece of gothic horror. The novel contains many elements that relate strongly with modern day dilemmas of biotechnology.

The plot of Frankenstein is revealed through the device of letters an arctic explorer, Captain Walton, writes to his sister back in England. Walton writes of his discovery of Dr. Victor Frankenstein, nearly dead, on a drifting iceberg. Dr. Frankenstein recalls to him his childhood and his quest to understand nature banish death and give life to lifeless matter.

For this purpose Dr. Frankenstein would steal into cemeteries late at night and steal body parts from newly deceased corpses. He joined disparate dead body parts together and created a living artificial man, hideous in appearance.

The monster escaped the laboratory and Dr. Frankenstein got involved in his academic and scientific career till he heard news that his brother William had been murdered. Frankenstein heads home to Geneva where he sees a glimpse of his monster but does not tell anyone about it. A servant girl is accused of the crime and falsely admits to killing William under pressure.

Frankenstein then comes upon his monster while hiking in the Alps, the monster tells Frankenstein how he learned to speak and love through his observation of a peasant family. He found Miltons Paradise Lost and learned to read. The monster tells Frankenstein that he is responsible for his wellbeing since he is his creator. He says that his earlier crimes were the result of loneliness, since he is grotesque and his appearance is repulsive to humans, he pleads Frankenstein to provide him with a female mate.

Frankenstein agrees to this and starts work on a female monster, but then fears of unleashing a race of monsters upon mankind lead him to destroying all his work.

The monster, enraged by the death of his last hope for an end to the life of solitude, swears to kill all those Dr. Frankenstein loves. He murders Dr. Frankensteins friend Henry Clerval in Ireland. He then kills Dr. Frankensteins, cousin, adopted sister and wife, Elizabeth on their wedding night (Shelley).
Dr. Frankenstein swears to destroy the monster and chases after it, eventually ending up in the arctic where Captain Walton finds him. Dr. Frankenstein eventually dies blabbering to Walton, who like himself, has a passion for research, to give up his scientific ambitions. The monster boards the ship and delivers a monologue about his inner tortures caused by intense loneliness and expresses contrition for his actions and then flees the scene by jumping onto a passing iceberg.

Ethical Issues Raised by Frankenstein
The ethical issue central to Frankenstein is the question of whether it is correct for scientists to play God, indulging in actions which were formerly seen as Gods private domain.
The Judaic concept of Tikkun olam or perfecting the world is relevant here. In contrast to many religions which see nature as perfect and sacrosanct, in Judaism, the work of God is imperfect and in need of repair (Sherwin, Jewish ethics for the twenty-first century living in the image of God). Judaic legends speak of Rabbis having the power of creating artificial humanoids of immense power called Golem. In Judaism, this is not seen as an abomination, rather, it is the perfection of Gods imperfect creation (Sherwin, Golems among us how a Jewish legend can help us navigate the biotech century).
As modern advances in genetics and biotechnology give greater and greater powers to scientists, this question becomes increasingly relevant.

Another question which arises is whether scientific studies are pursued regardless of the potentially devastating consequences.

This is also highly relevant to our time where the results of scientific investigation have had devastating consequences for the Earths environment and have led to the creation and deployment of weapons of mass destruction which are capable of destroying entire regions within seconds.

Another issue is whether or not the creation has any rights over their creators. This has been a great point of contention among theologians for centuries.

There are several minor ethical issues raised by the novel, for example, whether a dead human body is deserving of respect or not (Spiers). Most human cultures seem to believe that the human body still deserves to be treated with respect after the death of an individual.

Plato
Plato (427 BC-348 BC) is one of the earliest known philosophers in history whose ideas are still preserved.

In his Symposium Plato gives an account of the creation of humans and the origins of love in the speech of Aristophanes

Aristophanes says that in the beginning, there human had three sexes not two, there was man, woman and man-woman. Each had two heads and two pairs of arms and legs. The gods, fearing their strength, split them into two, which leads to each individual having just one head and one pair of arms and legs. This leads the individual to seek completion through having a mate (Maguire).
In this beautiful allegory Plato has portrayed the pain and anguish felt by a person who feels alone and incomplete in the world without a mate.

Dr. Frankensteins monster was rejected by society because of its grotesque appearance. It also felt the anguish of a solitary individual and demanded a mate. Dr. Frankensteins action of denying it a mate is what led to it becoming enraged and starting its murderous campaign of retribution against its creator.

Thus we can say that according to Platos thought, by creating just one individual of the monster species, Dr. Frankenstein condemned it to a life of pain, torment and anguish (Stoehr). If he intended to create an artificial life form he should have created both the monster and its mate.

Aristotle,
Platos pupil Aristotle, (384 BC -322 BC) is one of the central figures of Western philosophy.
Aristotle believed that the exercise of virtue and self-control were essential to happiness. However, contrary to the Stoics, he believed that living a virtuous life did not necessitate happiness (Ostwald).
Aristotle believed that an ideal government was one that provided for the happiness of its people (Rogers). Aristotle defines the concept of eudaemonia which is a general concept comprising wellbeing, prosperity or happiness as the highest good (Fan).

In Aristotles moral philosophy, actions that did not lead to eudaemonia are immoral actions. Through this we can ascertain that Aristotle would have found Dr. Frankensteins actions which lead to his own unhappiness, the unhappiness of everyone he loved and the unleashing of a tortured monster upon the world, to be immoral acts.

Epictetus
Epictetus, (55-135) was a Stoic philosopher who believed, as the other Stoics did, that the negative emotions arose from wrong decisions. He believed that a morally perfect individual would never experience negative emotions and could achieve complete happiness (Almond).

Epictetus personal interpretation of the Stoic philosophy emphasized the power of fate and the limited ability to act afforded to an individual (MacIntyre).

Epictetus believed that unhappiness arose from trying to control those aspects of faith that were uncontrollable or failing to exercise self-control in the matters in which one had limited control (Schweiker).

According to Epictetus philosophy, the monsters unhappy and tormented state cannot be blamed upon Dr. Frankenstein in any way. Instead it arose from the monsters efforts to exercise control over those aspects of its life upon which it had no control.

Using Epictetus philosophy we can argue that the monster ought to have accepted its grotesque and hideous appearance and its resultant solitary position in the world in calm manner unaffected by emotion. This failure to exercise self-control is what drove the monster into melancholy and eventually into a destructive and murderous rage.

Likewise Dr. Frankensteins unhappiness arose from his attempting to control life and death, something that was beyond his control and his failure to accept with calmness his eventual demise.

Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274) is an important philosopher in the field of Christian philosophy
Aquinas believed that life was a diving gift and each human was a mirror of God (Wadell).
The creation of Dr. Frankensteins monster would probably be the source of severe theological problems for Aquinas.

Aquinas might interpret the creation of artificial forms of life as an attempt to usurp the exclusive right of God to create life.

Thus we can say that the creation of Dr. Frankensteins monster would be an abomination to Aquinas. It is also likely that to entertain the very notion that the creation of an artificial form of life was possible would be regarded as a heresy against the teachings of Christianity by Aquinas and the one who believed that such a thing was possible would be deemed a heretic and condemned to a painful death.

Thomas Hobbes
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, (1588-1679) was one of the major thinkers in the field of political philosophy.

In contrast to the philosophers that sanctified and idealized the state of nature, Hobbes holds that the state of nature is a miserable state. He identifies nature with absolute chaos and a perpetual state of war.

Hobbes holds that being rational creatures, humans can see that the state peace and order is superior to the state of war and disorder. In order to achieve the state of peace and order, it in incumbent upon humans to submit to what he calls, the Laws of Nature.

The Laws of Nature to Hobbes, are basically manifestations of the golden rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To conform to these laws, it is necessary to submit to a higher authority and to abstain from such evils as injustice, cruelty and ingratitude.

Even though Hobbes lacked the idea of the sanctity of nature, Hobbes philosophy cannot justify the creation of Frankensteins monster because it necessitates that an individual confirm to the laws and norms of their society.

Since the creation of an artificial man was obviously considered unequivocally detestable in Dr. Frankensteins society, there is no way to justify his experiment.

John Locke
The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) was a highly religious Christian.
Locke viewed life as a gift from a wise, omnipotent and benevolent God. He believed that the mechanisms through which an organism maintained life was a secret that God had kept from the creation.

Locke was opposed to the endless dissection of living or bodies or even the attempts to observe the inner workings of the body as wastes of time which would yield no useful information

All that Anatomie can do is only to shew us the gross and sensible parts of the body, or the vapid and dead juices all which, after the most diligent search, will be noe more able to direct a physician how to cure a disease than how to make a man for to remedy the defects of a part whose organicall constitution and that texture whereby it operates, he cannot possibly know, is alike hard, as to make a part which he knows not how is made.

It is obvious that to Locke, Dr. Frankensteins endeavors in attempting to understand life and banish death would have been a wasted effort.

How Locke would react to the successful creation of an artificial human being is another matter. It is likely that such a creature would provoke moral panic on the part of Locke and he would have condemned it as an attempt to usurp the place of God.

For Locke life belongs to God alone, he views suicide and murder as immoral because they are destruction of property that belongs to God. It is possible that he would view the creation of artificial life in the same manner.

Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a humanistic German philosopher who believed that the human species was the epitome of all existence. In Kants view, humanity was itself an objective. The linchpin of Kants philosophy is the principle known as the Categorical Imperative this is in many ways an exegesis of the Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Kants first formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that, Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

According to this formulation, ends do not justify the means. The principle restricts one into committing an act, if and only if one is willing to let that act become a universal precedent, this is a refutation of the ideas of utilitarianism that can be used to justify the creation of Dr. Frankenstein monster.

Kants second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is even more relevant to the moral dilemma posed by the creation of the monster. It has been translated as, Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.

According to this formulation, to act humanely, must itself be the primary objective of each action. An ethical man must never treat himself or any other human in a manner that does not accord with the respect due to a human.

In light of Kants philosophy, no objective, no matter how great would justify the creation of a tormented being like the one created by Dr. Frankenstein.

Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a utilitarian philosopher who believed that the morally correct action was the one that brought about the most good (Jamieson). In addition he was a hedonist who identified good with pleasure and identified evil with pain.

Benthams formulation of utilitarianism in light of his understanding of good and evil necessitates that a moral individual try to minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure of primarily themselves and then that of everyone else.

Benthams ideas have important consequences for the moral dilemma created of Dr. Frankenstein. On one hand there is the possibility of doing away with death, which is an utterly terrifying and painful prospect for most people, on the other hand there is the possibility that the creature would turn out the way it did.

If Dr. Frankenstein subscribed to Benthams ideas of good and evil he would weigh the potential pain caused by the creation of a monster against the potential alleviation of the pain of millions of people.
However Bentham did not obligate people to use his hedonistic calculus prior to making decisions, he says

It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgment.

In other words, Benthams hedonistic calculuss correct use is to apply it to the actual consequences of each action, after the action has taken place and not to the potential consequences of the action while deciding whether or not to perform it. This means that the ideas of Bentham are not supposed to be guiding principles but only the means of criticizing an action, once it has taken place.
Taking this in account, it becomes obvious that the creation of the monster, since it brought about so much pain to Dr. Frankenstein and the monster itself and led to the death of many of Dr. Frankensteins loved ones, was a highly immoral act according to the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.
An interesting fact about Bentham is that he left instructions for his dead body to be dissected during a public lecture on anatomy and then stuffed and set up as an auto-icon (i.e. becoming his own statue). The Bentham auto icon is still partially preserved and in put on display at important occasions at the University College of London (Collings). From this we can infer that perhaps Bentham would have no objection to Frankensteins stealing of body parts from cemeteries to further his experiments.

William Godwin
Mary Shelleys father, William Godwin (1756-1836) was a philosopher of much renown. His thought was inclined towards anarchism.

Godwin considered government to be a corrupting influence in human society. Godwin believed that as humanity advanced technologically, the personal moral values of individual humans would advance along with it and everyone would adhere strictly to their personal highly advanced code of morality thereby rendering governments redundant.

Godwin also believed in a form of utilitarianism, whereby each action of an individual should be taken with a view towards maximizing the benefit to the human species as a whole.

In pursuit of this utilitarian ideal, Godwins ideas often fall short of the dictates of conventional morality and what one might suppose to be the instinctual moral response.

For example Godwin theorized that if in a fire a person had a choice to save either one of his parents or the Archbishop Fenelon a benefactor of mankind, they should save Archbishop Fenelon and let their own parent burn to death.

Using this philosophy of utilitarianism it might be possible for Godwin to see Dr. Frankensteins experiments, which were undertaken with the intention of understanding better, the mechanisms of life and eventually conquering mankinds greatest enemy death, as justified for the greater good of humankind.

Dr. Frankenstein never intended to make a psychologically unstable, internally torn and tormented, vengeful and murderous monster.

Even if Dr. Frankenstein had any idea that there was a chance that his creation might be grotesque and repellent to other people and that would drive it insane and lead to the deaths of his loved ones, using the utilitarian principles it can be argued that the potential good to humankind greatly outweighed the harm caused to Dr. Frankensteins loved ones and the pain caused to Dr. Frankenstein himself and his monster.

John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a proponent of utilitarian and hedonistic principles but his hedonism and utilitarianism is severely restrained as compared to that of Jeremy Bentham with a number of guiding principles.

Mill is highly critical of the idea of moral intuition as a guide for actions, he argues that the idea that something is wrong just because it feels wrong and another thing is right because it feels right cannot be taken seriously as guiding principle because that which is moral according to one persons intuition may be immoral according to the intuition of another person.

According to this principle the gut reaction that many people have condemning the creation of artificial life forms is entirely invalid as an argument.

Mill proposed that the moral action was one that caused the most happiness to the greatest number of people, within reason. However when that happiness derives from the unhappiness of another he deems it to be morally unsound.

This principle has been primarily formulated in response to the question of schadenfreude where a person is widely hated to the extent that the greatest amount of happiness can be derived from making that person unhappy. The ideas of unprincipled Hedonism and Utilitarianism dictate that it would be the most moral thing to visit harm upon such a person in order to achieve the greatest happiness in the greatest number of people.

Mill counters this idea saying, that this attitude of malevolence towards someone could only arise in a person who valued their own pleasure over the pleasure of others.

According to these principles, it would not be moral for Dr. Frankenstein to create his monster even if his end was the happiness of the greatest number of people, due to the unhappiness visited upon the creature itself.

Frederick Nietzsche
Frederick Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a 19th century German philosopher who attempted to refute all traditional ideas of morality, especially Christian morality.

Nietzsche believed that the superior type of man was an unconventional man, one that set his own standards of conduct and utterly disregarded the norms and the orthodox opinions of his society.

According to Nietzsche, the Supermen strive into the unknown guided only by their own moral code and an intense passion

It involves the use of a rare and singular standard cold to everybody else the discovery of values for which no scales have been invented yet offering sacrifices on altars that are dedicated to an unknown god a courage without any desire for honors self-sufficiency that overflows and gives to men and things.

In addition Nietzsche acknowledges two types of morality one which he calls Master-Morality is the morality of strong willed individuals. These individuals determine that which is good or bad through their own will and judgment. This morality weighs actions based upon their consequences. The other morality is the morality of weak willed individuals, the masses or the herd, it is a reaction to the Master morality. The slave-morality weighs actions based on intentions.

In the light of Nietzsches theories, Dr. Frankensteins disregard of conventional morality through the creation of the monster, his utter disregard for his creations happiness and wellbeing and his general coldness and lack of empathy are the very qualities that make a man great.

In addition we can see that the aims of Dr. Frankenstein, namely to banish death and to create a race of supermen is entirely in accordance with Nietzsches own aims of creating a heroic race of elite supermen.