Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StoneTwin t1_j91dtxv wrote

Reply to comment by atomicitalian in Is Frankenstein responsible for the murders his creation committed? by siuknowwhatImean

I'm sure you can cite "documentaries" depicting Frankenstein's monster & vampires & mummies (curse people!) & skeletons & zombies.

Even Jason & the Argonauts, a very old tale, has people creating extremely dangerous skeleton warriors by throwing teeth on the ground.

1

atomicitalian t1_j91f0ew wrote

Sure but you can also look at modern day practice of stopping and restarting the heart to bring people back and see they don't become monsters.

So I would argue it's not the revival of the dead that's in question but the method. And while Frankenstein's methods were certainly unorthodox, theres no reason to assume they would inherently lead to an evil outcome. He didn't use voodoo or teeth to make skeletons or do witchcraft or demon summoning, he was doing a medical procedure.

We transfer organs all the time and have even done penis and face replacements. So using foreign organs to restore someone's health isn't inherently evil, and using electricity to restore function to a body isn't inherently evil, therefore I'd argue Frankenstein could have reasonably assumed his experiment would have similar, non evil outcomes, and not result in a monster.

3

siuknowwhatImean OP t1_j93v3pp wrote

Right, but would the “reasonable person” defense still hold up once it is clear that the monster is conscious (regardless of what was expected of its moral temperament before it was alive), as it was when I turned my back on it?

1

StoneTwin t1_j91ndsm wrote

It is the creation of undead, not just reviving someone that hasn't reached a natural death.

0