Moral Obligation In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Mary Shelley’s, “Frankenstein,” is a thought-provoking novel that raises important ethical and moral dilemmas regarding Frankenstein’s creation of a female counterpart. Frankenstein’s experiment, the creature, embodies deontology, a belief system that relies on rules and principles to distinguish right from wrong. Opposing this mindset, the novel’s titular character, Victor Frankenstein, represents utilitarianism: a philosophy that prioritizes outcomes and consequences of actions. This thinking resulted in Victor changing his mind as he “tore to pieces” the partially constructed female. The dilemma revolves around this action. It begs the reader to question whether Victor had a moral obligation to create a partner for the companion. My argument

In other words, I believe that despite his premature abandonment of the creature, Frankenstein still has a clear ethical duty to care for and nurture his creation rather than make him a new companion.
The creature holds moral status. Through the lens of Beauchamp and Childress, the creature’s moral status in “Frankenstein” is proven. The so-called “theory based on human properties” proposes that things of homo sapien nature, birth, or genetic code have a right to obtain moral status. Although the creature is a culmination of scientific human waste and manufactured life, he still possesses human qualities. Julien Salvulescu confirms this by stating, “A chimera is a genetic mix. It is not a pig with a human pancreas inserted into it - it is a human-animal chimera.” In other words, the creature is not simply a creature, he is a human-creature combination, therefore, containing moral status. The second claim is the “theory based on cognitive properties.” Cognition is the ability to be aware of the surroundings as thinking, memories, and comprehension. This is an obvious attribute of the creature. He has the

It is “The theory based on sentience” or the ability to feel human emotion. As stated previously, the creature may have not initially experienced anthropoid emotions, but he slowly develops that ability as he comes into contact with outside influence. The creature feels empathy, sympathy, anger, and guilt. This is proven when the creature discloses that “when they had retired to rest, if there was any moon, or the night was star-light, I went into the woods, and collected my own food and fuel for the cottage.” He takes care of the family he comes across and even collects wood for them as a result of his sympathetic nature. In summation, the theories presented are multiple points of verification that the creature has moral status and should not be viewed simply as a scientific disaster but as a fully functioning human.
The German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, argues that the correct moral path is direct devotion. The fact that Frankenstein ignores the creature highlights his failure to act in this moral practice. He created life but refused to care for it, thus shirking his duty. In the novel, Frankenstein admits, “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing