Hotchkiss-N, Franken Post 3

Are humans inherently good or evil? What does Shelley think? What do you think?

It seems that Shelley believes that, like nature vs. nurture, humans exhibit inherent qualities of both good and evil. The first difficulty in defining/answering this question is the nature of what "good" or "bad" -ness is. Is it necessarily evil of Victor to reanimate the nonexistent? In scientific consideration, this could be seen as completely unethical or completely innovative. Is it good or bad from a moral standpoint? It is the relative nature of these questions that makes them difficult to define. Also, the fact that the monster isn't human makes it even more convoluted.

The primary example that can be used in answering this is Victor, who grows more and more haggard as the novel progresses and more of his loved ones die/are killed. However, through all of his hardships, he still manages to have his story come full circle for the better--he warns another wide-eyed adventurous explorer about the mire ahead if he should seek to dissect nature. If he were completely bad, he would not have even bothered. "'Shall I, in cold blood, set loose upon the earth a daemon, whose delight is in death and wretchedness?" (122). Victor says this to the monster, implying his bleak outlook that has  developed. He cannot assume the second monster's evilness, and doesn't recognize the "feelings of affection" that the monster had at his creation. He fears automatic evil in the she daemon's mechanism, which is an understandable but not necessarily plausible assumption. Throughout the novel, there are many examples of the inherent goodness and badness in characters. Elizabeth seems to be completely good; and she makes me think that Shelley may veer, in her philosophy, towards the "inherently good" side of the scale, but she definitely weighs the option in her mind because her characters are, realistically, not inclined towards 100% goodness, as seen with Victor's fervent action to create life--which could be interpreted as "bad" or naive.

My personal thoughts on the issue: babies are unadulterated by corruption because they are babies. But that doesn't mean that they will be good forever. They may start exhibiting "bad" behaviors at a very young age. I would say that the nature vs nurture question is integral to this one; it is probably poor nurturing that results in more badness. Even the most good of all people is not good--people mess up and they make mistakes. But I also believe that most people are inclined towards good--people, even if they like to ignore it, are intrinsically pleased and satisfied when they help someone genuinely. People, even the most gloomy of them, would much rather receive a compliment than a hateful comment. We are programmed for positivity because it makes us happier, more productive, and generally more content with our current surrounding. Some people may have many patterns that could be considered evil but nevertheless exhibit goodness in some other aspect of life and that's why I don't think anyone is ever completely bad or completely good.