|
Post by hansoo on Apr 29, 2015 0:05:49 GMT
As I read Frankenstein, I begin to ask the border between science and god. If one is capable of making animated livings using scientific knowledge, does that mean he or she has right to do so?
Please feel free to share your standpoint with following reasons.
|
|
|
Post by edward95312 on Apr 29, 2015 0:08:31 GMT
Victor in the book. he was against god. He made a living creature. He did not make it naturally. victor ignored nature. That is why he got punished. I the the creation was the punishment. It killed Victor's family.
|
|
|
Post by leeeeena on Apr 29, 2015 0:21:40 GMT
I think one should not only think of his or her scientific knowledge when creating something. Morality and religious aspects should also be considered as one's creation may affect to others greatly.
|
|
|
Post by ameliachen80385 on Apr 29, 2015 12:14:16 GMT
As we all know in Frankenstein,dangerous knowledge and nature,both of them are the major themes.Nature is one important part of some religion,especially Christianity and for me dangerous knowledge means the creation that Victor created.When both of them go against, probably there will be something happen in the next few chapters and we do not know yet.In my point, I think if there is a person is capable of making animated livings using scientific knowledge,he/she has a right to do so,but the thing is they have to take responsibilities for their products.
|
|
misato
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by misato on May 2, 2015 9:24:37 GMT
I think science is that something we can proof and god is that images were making by people.
|
|
|
Post by lins on May 2, 2015 12:58:20 GMT
As I was reading Frankenstein, I could see that the author tried to parallel Victor to the God and the monster to the Adam. The monster was keep comparing himself to Adam who was related to no one, like Adam. However, he also compared himself to Satan because of his tendency to feel jealous. Moreover, the monster forces Victor to make one more of his kind so that he would have companion in the future, other than human because humans mostly feared the monster. In this case, the monster was asking for Eve, like how Adam asked for another individual of his kind from God.
The difference between Victor and God is that Victor's creation was incomplete; it was deformed, gross and deserted. However, Adam, the god's creation, was perfect in appearance, happy and loved by his creator. Victor wasn't really responsible for his creation, which was his action, while the God was responsible for what he had created.
|
|
|
Post by estherchoi on May 3, 2015 14:13:55 GMT
I think someone has the right to create a creation if he or she can be responsible of it. Victor should have not created the monster because he was not responsible of it and thus made everyone, including the monster and himself unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by sergeyfen on May 3, 2015 14:37:56 GMT
I think it depends on religion, some people say that or some people may say something else... Personally i don't care or connect creating something god like creature to bad or something immoral, as long as you are responsible for what you have created it's all good. But if a person is not responsible for creating something than it's a different story, essentially it would be not being responsible for actions that a person had made.
|
|
|
Post by brandonina on May 3, 2015 14:55:48 GMT
It's not wrong to create some living thing by using one's knowledge. If one argues that it's God's job to do so, then how about non-living things that we create? If we can make things that aren't living, why can't we do the same to create something alive? Maybe it's morally wrong to create something for bad purposes but if it's not, I don't see why someone can't make an animated thing, unless he or she offends the god or claims that god is oneself.
|
|
|
Post by irin on May 3, 2015 17:16:20 GMT
I think it is depends on what you believe. I think depends on what you believe but some people care how they compare of the creation but some people not.
|
|
|
Post by jmoon234 on May 4, 2015 0:57:14 GMT
Victor did create the monster, but Victor isn't taking care of it. I can relate this to when a person bought a dog to take care of, but isn't being responsible enough to take care of it.
|
|
|
Post by dhiya on May 4, 2015 3:43:07 GMT
I don't think you had the right to play God- there are just limits to everything, and if you cross that you can be punished for it. I think that is why Victor's family was killed- as a punishment
|
|
|
Post by saimoon1 on May 4, 2015 5:41:36 GMT
I don't think that anybody has the right to create living beings. Even if creating life was possible, what good would it bring? I feel like there are more cons than pros in creating life, hence, scientists should stay away from trying to create life.
|
|
|
Post by danielkim on May 4, 2015 7:41:46 GMT
I think it is not ethically right to make living things because we can’t guarantee the safety of that creature and we don’t know what it will do. It could either benefit us or harm us. When Victor made the creature and did not treat it well, he becomes unhappy after the murder of William and execution of Justine.
|
|
|
Post by anyuchen on May 5, 2015 10:51:55 GMT
As for me, I think people who has knowledge could have the right to create the product such as Frankestain. Today, people are hard working to gain knowledge from nature world and most of them actually make a good influence on people's life. I think science is a double-edged sword. Only after people put their effort in real world, we can konw wheteher it could make benefit to world or hurt people. From the aspect of society, i think people have right to crate anything they want base on their knowledge.
|
|