Ethics In Frankenstein

1341 Words6 Pages

Are we born with the awareness of right and wrong imprinted into our DNA? Do we construct our own ethical guideline? Born into this world as nothing but a blank canvas, children denote the perception of exemplified purity, as they have produced no harm and committed no sin. Though that assumption may be true, from young child to young adult, we observe correct and incorrect behavior along the way. Whether we follow a definite guideline of morality or follow our “gut” feeling, since our first memory, we have been familiar to “right” and “wrong”. Formulation of neurological stimuli assimilated with preceding understandings may be the biological process to judge certain moments in our life, but there are more intricate theories that provide an …show more content…

When it comes to moral dilemmas between cultures, there is a grey area that can sometimes make it difficult to resolve issues surrounding the dilemma. How is it possible to know what is morally correct when cultures differ so vastly? One theory, explained by Rachels, says “Different cultures have different moral codes” (Rachels 17), and “the moral code of a society determines what is right within that society…if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society” (Rachels 17). That theory is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is developed on the basis that there is no common set of values that can apply to everyone, as there is a numerous amount of cultures that exist and clash with each other. Though I can surely agree that every culture has their own set of moral values, this is where I find Cultural Relativism to be flawed. Cultural Relativism incites the judgment of of other cultures. While coexisting in a culture with established rules and values, another culture may find your practices to be immoral. Rachels describes practices within a society located in western Africa that believe “Excision” is morally acceptable. …show more content…

Ethical Egoism is the theory that supports this claim. In Ethical Egoism described by Rachels, “each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively. This is the morality of selfishness…our only duty is to do what is best for ourselves.” (Rachels 65). While Ethical Egoism implies that one should do what is best for them, it does not tell you to avoid the well-being of others. Personal interests often coincide with the interests of others. In a way, you could be helping others by helping yourself/following self-interest. The fact that your self-interest may benefit others is not what makes the act correct, rather it is right because it benefits you. An example that would support my allegiance to this theory is the simple one of giving to a charity or sparing change to a homeless individual. While the act of generosity seems to only positively affect the recipients of the money, the individual who gives is also affected. I can’t be alone when I say that giving makes me feel better about myself. Do I give in order to feel good? Yes, not only do I feel good about myself when I give, it makes me feel good about the individuals in need who receive the money. Therefore, I can determine that this part of Ethical Egoism fits into my ethical

Open Document