Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Is Ethical

1384 Words6 Pages

Ethics are emplaced in us as adolescences. Ethics are a set of moral principles a person lives by. Ethics can be set by the environment around a person. Things can factor in such as their family, culture, and friends etc. Everybody has their different opinions of what ethic codes that are most important for one to follow. I have analyzed that it was unethical that Victor created a monster then ran away from it. It was unethical for Victor Frankenstein to create life to abandon it. As well as taunt the creations’ existences, which caused four demise by a domino effect. In that moment, I gathered the realization that type of science was ethically wrong. Even though having current technology that can help humanity, unethical science should …show more content…

Now scientists have found a method to prolong life for the elderly by taking blood from young children. The pros to that would be longer life spans, and less time having to mourn over the death of a love one. As well as funeral cost, and spending more time with your love ones while they are on earth. The cons to it’s unethical of scientists to take blood from love ones for “selfish gain”. It is self-gain because it’s trying to have more years on the earth doing what most elderly people consider painful. This can be related to Jurassic Park, because both are living organisms that should stay in their time period. Trying to prologue time will have a rippling effect on things around it, so it is best to leave them in its time period. The last article, “DNA Nanobots set to seek and Destroy Cancer cells in Human Trail.” are the trails of cancer victims that had nanobots inside their system destroying cancerous cells. This would be a substitute for chemotherapy, it will give the cancer victim a chance to fight it without pumping numerous rounds of chemicals into their body that may kill them alone. The cons to it would be the nanobots malfunction into the blood causing it to target the wrong cells. Overall, I find it ethical enough to continue trails to perfect it on its way. This can relate to both Frankenstein and Jurassic Park in two different aspects. It relates to Frankenstein because Victor could’ve perfected his work since he knew that the monster lived, but instead he chose to give up on it. Which caused people to die in that fault, if scientists do not continue to work with it many more people can die from cancer. It relates to Jurassic Park by the trying to create a dinosaur that did not even exist at all. By doing that it had a very bad fail to it. Scientists can keep that in mind when making modifications in this DNA

Open Document