¡What consequences do we face if we do not take responsibility for our actions?
¡How does lack of compassion lead to prejudice and stereotyping?
¡In what ways does scientific advancement present positive and negative consequences?
¡Which has a greater impact on human development – nature or nurture?
In response to the second question, sterotyping leads to a lack of compassion and sometimes lack of compassion leads of stereotyping. About the first: without a direct emotional connection that causes compassion, people tend to stereotype and have prejudice. It is a tendency we have to group different peoples for the sake of convenience. Then, when we view media portrayals, see examples, or hear others' opinions, we often apply it not to an individual but rather the convenient group, thus making a judgment. Without natural compassion or a specific connection, that kind of grouping can lead to prejudice. For example, if a child grew up in a home where a specific religious group was berated, that child might stereotype that group of people based on others' opinions or specific examples. They would lack compassion for them. Yet perhaps if they had a link, like if they met a person of that group whom they liked and whom broke that stereotype, that child might begin to realize the mistake and thus have compassion. If beginning with a lack of compassion, deliberate indifference or hate could prompt intentional prejudice.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Frankenstein the creature is treated as an awful monster with cruel intentions. Not a single person, upon seeing him, shows any sort of understanding. He never receives one chance due to his appearance. In the present day everyone stereotypes, almost automatically. Instead of talking to someone "different" people go about their daily business and assume the worst. It seems as though no one will take the time to even attempt to understand someone before assigning a label to them. A Muslim man in an airport is a terrorist, a white girl with short shorts is a slut, a black man with low riding jeans is a gang member. Stereotyping is hurtful and only leads to ignorance. Mary Shelley displays these flaws in society through Frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteChristine, I would be curious to see how you would connect your responses to Frankenstein. Can you make those same arguments with the text?
ReplyDeleteScientific advancement is both positive and negative. However, it is more of the latter, because too much technology strips humans of their old values-just as it did Victor, when he tried to play the role of God. Advantages in technology include healing illnesses and diseases, creating faster means of communication, and bringing about an easier way of life. But within the realm of technology and knowledge, social disorder and unease are created, and human morals are lost.
ReplyDeleteIn response to nature versus nurture, and which is most impacting, it is obvious that nurture is most influencial. The creature did not receive any type of nurture when he first came into this world. In sociology, we learned that a girl of 6 years grew up with a family of wolves. Now, it is understand that in nature, humans would not take on the behaviors of dogs. Humans are an animal of their own; however, this young girl who grew up with wolves was found to behave as a dog. The fact that this girl inherited the ways of the dogs proves that her behavior was the end result of the nurture she received while with them. Nurture, which the creature did not receive, would have made Victor's creature civilized. But without it, he learned only cruelty, and became corrupted, just as the lack of compassion he received had taught him.
I believe that nuture has a greater impact on human development then nature. Nature can play a role in the childs development. They may have characteristics that resemble their parents characteristics or habits they may develop are the same their parents had. Nuture has a greater impact because it is something the parents can control on how they raise their children with compassion and love or being strict. Victor did not nuture his monster when he was born and abandonded him. The monster hated Victor for that. If Victor would have shown compassion and love for the monster it would learn to be kind. You could also make and arguement that even if Victor raised him the world around him would not accept the monster and would shun him. This could lead to the same violent behavior as well.
ReplyDeleted like to give my views on the last question, and I laugh to myself as I present my views because I think of Jacob, and I know how much he hates the"nature vs. nurture" topic. Anyways, I believe that even though instinct and natural behavior comesinto account, I feel that nurture has the biggest influence on the outcome of ones life. In Frankenstein, the creature is never loved and is therefore affected negatively throughout the book. This leads him to make very poor choices, and I'd like to say that if the creature was shone some compassion from his creator then he may have acted a little differently.
ReplyDeletesome real bad typos, sry
ReplyDeleteResponse to Question #1
ReplyDeleteBefore actions are done, one must consider the consequences. If consequences are not seen, people make their actions rash. To take responsibility of what has been done is to realize what you have done. In the novel, Victor does not truly comprehend what he has done in creating the creature until it is too late. And due to the fact that he did not serve his consequence by taking care of his creation and teaching it of what the world is, it led to his very destruction and the destruction of the lives near and dear to him. Needless to say, if you do not take responsibility, your destruction is inevitable.
In response to the first question, everyone is faced with horrible consequences if they do not take any responsibility for their actions. In the novel, Frankenstein had many chances to take responsibility and yet he failed time and time again. Since he never "took care of his problem" it only continued to grow. He should have initially taken responsibility after creating it but he didn't and because of this, he created a sad, unloved monster, and Victor indirectly killed William and Justine. Shortly after this incident, he was given another chance to take responsibility for his creation, when the monster confronted him. Yet, he did not. Instead, he only angered the monster more(by promising a second monster and destroying it). Then the monster murdered Henry and Elizabeth. That's two more characters dead because Victor did not handle the situation as he should have. Finally, Victor himself dies after trying to chase down the monster. This final death, of himself, was once again a consequence that he had to face for refusing the responsibility that was rightfully his. The novel easily showed that if a person does not take responsibility for their actions, then they will be haunted by them and they will cause more trouble in the end. If Victor had only heeded this lesson, many innocent lives could have been saved.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't take responsibility for our own actions, the consequences of our actions aren't recognized, either by ourselves or others, and the mistakes we make are bound to be repeated. Victor knows that the deaths in his family are his fault for creating the monster, but doesn't tell anyone. If he had immediately told someone, he could have saved Elizabeth, Henry, etc. He tries to make up for his lack of responsibility by telling Walton, whom he hopes will share this tale with others and that it may prevent others from making the same mistakes he did. The book shows examples of what happens when people don't take responsibility for their actions, and leaves the reader to make their own conclusions about what will happen when they do take responsibility for their actions.
ReplyDelete@ Mrs. Adams, to connect my first post to the text, I believe Victor stereotyped the monster which lead to a lack of compassion for him. Though the monster doesn't exactly have kin we can group him with, he does fit in with people that have physical deformities. Physical deformities and ugliness are often invoke premature judgments of evil, which is evident in that angels are typically shown as beautiful and demons as ugly and deformed. Before the monster had actually done anything wrong, his creator made a judgment about him based on his deformity. It was stereotyping. He even referred to him as a demon, though he'd done nothing monstrous. Eventually he lived up to his 'father's' expectations through his actions, but initially he had done nothing to warrant that compassionless judgment that prompted Victor to flee and abandon him.
ReplyDeleteThere are always consequences to our actions. We normally don't think about the consequences of something before we do it, it's just human nature. In this book Victor rushed into things way too fast. He got this idea in his head and couldn't wait for it to be finished so that he could make his mark on the world and become "famous." I don't think he realized just how big his mark on the world would be, especially on his own life. In the end his consequences were that almost all of his family was killed and he has to live with the guilt for the rest of his life for creating the monster that killed his family.
ReplyDeleteThere was a major lack of compassion in Frankenstein. When Victor saw what his final masterpiece looked like, he was disappointed. He had such high expectations on to what the creature would look like and how it would act. Victor did not appreciate the creature at all. He left to go see his father and left the creature all alone. The creature had nobody there to love and care for him and be there as a father figure. He decided that he would leave and try to learn the ways of the people. He saw himself as ugly and did not understand why people judged him like the villagers. The lack of compassion from Victor caused the creature to make an uproar against him. He lashed out on all the people that meant something in Victor's life. He had no confidence going out into the world because he was despised by Victor. Because of all the prejudice against him, he felt the need to harm Victor. The creature made that his goal in life until Victor died when he realized that he had nothing to live for.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first question about consequences, I feel that there with every action comes a consequence that is either positive or negative. The severity of these consequences, in my eyes, can be viewed as a math problem; consequences=importance of the action is basically saying that the more important the decision is, the greater the consequences. For example, an action of small importance such as deciding not to brush your teeth today results in having a harmless consequence, bad breath; however, an action as serious as Victor’s creation of life has far greater consequences than that of bad breath.
ReplyDeleteThe whole book of Frankenstein is based off of action and reaction (consequences). Victor’s consequence for creating life was that many of his family and friends were killed, but he was still given a way out, a “light at the end of the tunnel” if you will. He was given the choice to create life again to save him and what was rest of his family and friends. He made the decision to put him and his friends’ lives on the line and once again there were consequences that resulted in more death to his family and friends. Victor made many poor choices in big situations. Let’s hope that we will make the right decisions when the big moments come…or suffer the consequences.
There are two instances in Frankenstein of which Victor does not take responsibility for his actions and the actions that he caused. The first instance is in the creation of the monster, when victor is in the process of his creation he never once thinks of the negatives of creating life so when the monster is created and it comes time for him to take care of the monster he abandons the monsters and returns home. By doing this he then again causes another incident which is the death of most of his family members. At no point again after the death of his family members does he think to blame himself, instead he feels sorry for himself and does not take responsibility for his actions. This would be a perfect book to have pre-teens read to teach them responsibility and what not to do.
ReplyDeleteHuman development depends both on nature and nuture. I think everyone is naturally good and their surroundings derives them from that. I believe that the primary factor in human development would be nuture because although we are all born good it is impossible to go through life without being affected by others or lack there of.
ReplyDelete