Frankenstein's Monster: Is He Responsible for His Actions?

The question of whether Frankenstein's monster is responsible for his actions has long been a subject of debate in literary and philosophical contexts. This essay explores the complexity of this question by examining key factors such as the nature versus nurture debate, the impact of social circumstances, the concept of moral agency, and various philosophical perspectives.

Creation and Nature vs. Nurture

The idea of Creation and Nature vs. Nurture is central to understanding the monster's actions. Victor Frankenstein, the monster's creator, abandons him immediately after bringing him to life. This lack of guidance and care can be seen as a significant factor in the monster's subsequent behavior. The argument here is that the monster's violent acts stem from neglect and a lack of socialization. On the other hand, the Innate Nature of the monster presents a different perspective. Upon creation, the monster begins as a blank slate, exhibiting curiosity and a desire for companionship. His transformation into a violent being raises questions about whether he is inherently evil or shaped by his experiences, particularly his rejection by society.

Circumstances and Isolation

The Social Rejection the monster faces due to his appearance is a pivotal factor in his evolution. Constant rejection and fear from humans drive his actions, suggesting that his environment plays a crucial role in his moral development. Similarly, his Desperation and Pain contribute to his behavior. When he seeks acceptance and is met with hostility, his frustration escalates into violence. These circumstances highlight the depth of his suffering and the external pressures that influence his choices.

Moral Agency: Choice and Accountability

The Capacity for Choice the monster demonstrates through his interactions with Victor and his understanding of the consequences of his actions is significant. This ability indicates that he has some level of Moral Agency. Despite his suffering, the monster chooses to commit acts of violence. This raises the question of accountability. If he has the ability to choose, to what extent can he be held responsible for those choices?

Philosophical Perspectives

From a Existentialist viewpoint, the monster is responsible for creating his own identity through his choices, even if those choices are influenced by external factors. Conversely, a Deterministic view might argue that the monster's actions are a result of his environment and experiences, thus mitigating his responsibility.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the monster exhibits elements of moral agency and makes conscious choices, his violent actions are heavily influenced by his abandonment, social rejection, and emotional suffering. This interplay suggests that while he bears some responsibility for his actions, the context of his creation and experiences plays a crucial role in understanding his behavior. The debate ultimately raises profound questions about the nature of responsibility, the influence of environment, and the complexities of human or creature behavior.