Who was guilty of murder...?

Question

In the novel "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" (yes, that's the actual title, not just "Frankenstein"), Doctor Frankenstein's creation commits a murder (several, but let's stick with the first one). In his ignorance this new-born Goliath (in terms of his strength) kills someone. Who was responsible, an ignorant but still cognicent creation who kills as he stumbles about in his naissence, or the creator who made him? Is Frankenstein responsible for his creation if he doesn't directly make the choices for the creation? Who (Frankenstein, the creation, both, neither?) is morally responsible for these actions?

Pastor:

What's the cut off point? 30 different choices? An advanced, if robotic, decision matrix? Where do you draw the line for what you create? Is there a magic number other than "a few decisions"?

spdesai7:

If you really think about it, you'll see how it applies to this section.

Answer 1

Excellent question. It was part of my thesis in college about bad parents in literature.

Victor was responsible because he unleashed the creature into the world instead of keeping it, teaching it, raising it, or at least killing it. He just ran away like a coward. The creature knew no better.
But you can't really blame Victor either because that is how he was raised. His mother indulged him so much when he was little. She even gave him Elizabeth, who was introduced to him as a gift for him.
While Victor is at fault for the murders, he is also a sympathetic character because the reader knows that in the end, what was he to do?

BTW, why didn't you ask this in the Books and Authors section? This question doesn't really have anything to do with religion, does it? Morality, although some would like to differ, can be achieved without religion.

Answer 2

The creature was a full sized adult who did not have the mental capacity to understand consequences of its actions (at least at first).

If I remember correctly there was an accident at the lab. Victor did NOT release the Creature, instead it wandered away from the event at the lab and the Doctor thought it was destroyed.

As its mind developed it eventually became cognoscente and learned to regret what it had done. At that point it began to avoid getting caught by the Doctor and started to blame him for the mistakes it (the Creature) had made before it was aware that they were mistakes.

If the Creature's release was an accident while the Doctor had been taking (what he believed since nothing like this had even been done before) were appropriate precautions, then the Doctor at the most is responsible for involuntary manslaughter.

Example. If during a fire a violent criminal, who was otherwise well secured in my prison, escapes and murders some one should the family have a right to sue me? Maybe if the fire was due to my negligence, but otherwise I had been doing my reasonable best to secure the prisoner before the fire.

Answer 3

Given what I can remember from the novel (that was a LONG time ago for me...), my conclusion would be that the guilt, if any, would lie with the doctor. The "creation" is no more morally responsible for his actions than would be a wild animal.

Although the creation may have the capacity to learn right from wrong, he had not learned to make that distinction and was action upon impulse.

It should be the responsibility of his creator to limit exposure to danger both to himself and to others until the full knowledge of the creature's abilities and capacities were understood.

Answer 4

The creator is responsible for his creation, until that creation is capable of understanding the laws of society for itself.

If I were to give a baby the remote detonator for an atomic bomb, then the baby is not responsible for the bomb going off, it does not know the consequences of what it is doing.

If I were to give a grown, competent person the same remote, and explain what the consequences were then they would bear the prime responsibility if they detonated the bomb.

Answer 5

I would have to say that at the very least, Dr. Frankenstein is responsible for making something he couldn't control and failing to have proper safety precautions. It shows definite lack of preparation and foresight on his part.

However, the monster committed the acts, regardless of his ability to understand right from wrong at the beginning. Ultimately, they are his responsibility, and his fault.

Answer 6

spdesai7: Let's see, a creator who's creature has sinned. Who's guilty, the creator, or the created? How could that apply to religion? Creator, God...I'm just not seeing the connection, either.

And to make this a real answer, I believe the sins of the created fall upon the shoulders of the creator. In the words of Audioslave, "You gave me a life, now show me how to live!"

Answer 7

Whichever had the capacity to judge right from wrong - or what would happen in certain circumstances. Just as a parent would be responsible for their ignorant child, so would Dr. Frankenstein be responsible for his ignorant child.

Answer 8

Manslaughter for the monster.

Criminal negligence for the doc - or the whatever the same penalty is given for an owner of an escaped pit bull that mauls a child.

I'm sure a litany of other charges could be brought up against the doc, grave robbing, practicing medicine with out a license, etc, but we're just talking about charges specific to that one act.

Answer 9

if the creator, has made something to think on its Own free will, the the created is responsible, however if the creator has created a robot that has only a few selected choices to compute and do...it falls on the creator...

Answer 10

Dr. Frankenstein - because he created a non-human, with no inherent knowledge of good and evil.

Now let's ask, does Dr. Frankenstein have the right to kill him?