The acquisition of knowledge is hazardous. Victor Frankenstein spent years focused on giving life to lifeless matter, such as a dead body, only to regret his discovery in the end.
When in the process of this discovery, Victor worked so hard that his health and his communication with his family suffered. He spent so much time “engaged in [his laboratory]” (77) that “the stars often disappeared in the light of morning” (77). Years went by and Victor “paid no visit to Geneva” (77). Every night, Victor “was oppressed by a slow fever. And [he] became nervous to a most painful degree” (83). Victor’s studies were taking over his life. They were destroying his health, and distancing himself from his family.
Once Victor finally accomplished his goal, and created life, he regretted it. Once Victor had finished, “the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled [his] heart”(84). His creation was hideous. He describes his creation as a “catastrophe” (83). Victor wanted nothing to do with the revolting creature. He fled his apartment and hoped the creature would be gone when he returned.
Furthering Victor’s remorse of his discovery, he believes his creation killed his brother, William. After realizing his creation could be the murderer, Victor “became convinced of its truth” (99). When Justine, a benevolent girl taken in by the Frankenstein family, is accused of the murder this furthers Victor’s guilt. William and Justine are casualties of Victor’s discovery. Victor can only blame himself for creating the vicious monster that killed his brother.
Victor’s discovery led to many innocent victims. He wishes he could turn back time and take back everything he has done to further science. Instead of feeling pride, “M. Waldman inflicted torture when he praised, with kindness and warmth, the astonishing progress [victor] had made in the sciences” (92). Victor’s years of discovery resulted in nothing but pain.
This bring us to the question, is furthering our knowledge worth it if it can lead to such agony? My answer is yes. While in some cases, science results in disaster, it also, in many situations, benefits us. Doctors save lives, People can communicate with family members across the country, etc. Ultimately, science is advantageous to the human kind.
I agree that science can have both positive and negative consequences, however I wouldn’t necessarily agree that the benefits always outweigh the detriments. In my opinion, whether or not scientific advancement is worth the negative repercussions it brings about is dependent upon the specific situation. For example, the creation of cell phones is a justified advancement because of its communicational benefits. Although it impedes on humanity’s ability to communicate in person, I believe it is worth this setback. On the other extreme, the benefits of cloning are not worth the repercussions. This invention is extremely dangerous and could have many potentially horrific outcomes. Overall, the debate whether scientific inventions are beneficial or detrimental is a hazy one, and depends solely on the individual situation at hand.
This of course begs the question of whether or not going to college is a wise decision.
Perhaps part of the problem is that it can be very difficult to judge the outcome of an event until it has happened. Victor works toward something, but it’s not until he’s done that he sees it as a terrible thing. How can we make ethical choices given this inability to know how things will go?