Where Do You Draw the Line Between Right and Wrong?

In my opinion, a good book is defined as not only something that makes you think, but something that makes you question those thoughts and the opinions that created them. As Mary Shelley's story Frankenstein unfolds, many controversial topics arise pertaining to both the novel and society in general. These thought provoking topics can make you question your opinions and even your own values. In the story Victor gives life to this human like creature. It has a human body, a human brain, and even a human heart, yet it is capable of superhuman actions, "...I could have torn him limb from limb, as the lion rends the antelope" (Shelley 124). The creature uses this strength to kill innocent human beings out of revenge for Victor, feeling no compassion or sorrow towards his victims. So is this creature human? Some humans are murderers, but their actions are considered inhuman, so are they truly human? What exactly defines a human, is it the physical and biological makeup; or the inner workings of compassion, love, and the ability to think on a higher level? Also, did Victor have the right to give life to this creation? He may have had good intensions when he started the project, hoping to make a scientific breakthrough explaining life itself, yet he was aware that his creation would not be perfect, "My operations might be incessantly baffled, and at last my work be imperfect..." (Shelley 39). Does he and the rest of the scientific community have the right to experiment with human life, knowing that things could go wrong? Like Victor's experiment, cloning and stem-cell research have become very controversial topics because they deal with the very delicate life of humans. Because it is for the benefit of society, I believe that justifies these experiments. But the line must be drawn when Victor is overcome by pride and decides to create an eight foot superhuman just because he can.

Another commonly debated aspect of the story is what should Victor do in response to the creature's violent actions and demanding threat, "My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create" (Shelley 133). Knowing how the first creature turned out and the the damage it is capable of, it is morally wrong for Victor to even consider creating another creature. However, the creature possesses great animosity towards human kind, "... Should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No; from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and more than all, against him who had formed me and sent me forth to this insupportable misery" (Shelley 126), and the only way to reason with the creature and prevent it from killing other humans is to give it a female mate. Yet if he makes this female companion, it would be extremely unpredictable and could end up causing more damage than the first creature. Either way, Victor is putting human lives in danger, and the only way to solve that would be to kill the creature. But does he have the right to kill the creature that he gave life to? People give life to babies and it is morally wrong to even consider hurting a baby. Abortions are even a controversial topic and the babies are not even born. Yet unlike the creature, babies are innocent and have not murdered anyone. So is it right to kill someone if they have murdered others purposely? The debate of whether Victor has the right to kill his creation, brings up the controversy of the electric chair and other forms of punishment by death. And finally the question of who is the true monster, Victor or his creation, arises. Because the story creates all these controversial topics that cause the reader to rethink their opinions and draw a line between right and wrong, Frankenstein, in my opinion is a great novel.