Ethics of Creating Cloned Human Beings in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
In an age where cloning, gene editing, and artificial intelligence challenge the boundaries of human innovation, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein continues to resonate as a prophetic exploration of science unrestrained by ethical considerations. Written in the early 19th century, the novel tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist whose desire to create life leads to the construction of a sentient creature assembled from human remains. Despite its historical distance, Shelley’s narrative anticipates today’s bioethical debates, especially the moral dilemmas surrounding cloning and the artificial creation of human life. Frankenstein serves as a cautionary tale that warns of the devastating consequences that can arise when scientific advancement is pursued without responsibility, empathy, or moral reflection. This danger affects both the creator and the life that is created.
The novel begins with Victor Frankenstein’s obsessive thirst for knowledge, which ultimately drives him to create a living being from dead tissue. His ambition reflects modern concerns about cloning and the ethical boundaries of human experimentation. Victor carefully selects what he considers beautiful anatomical parts to assemble his creature. Yet, the moment he succeeds in bringing the body to life, he is overcome with disgust. He states, “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation, but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” This reaction shows how scientific ambition, when divorced from ethical thought, can result in fear, regret, and emotional detachment. Though Victor aims for perfection, the unnatural combination of parts terrifies him once it becomes real. His horror suggests that he never fully grasped the implications of his experiment until it was too late.
This moment reflects a central problem in modern cloning. Scientists may become focused on what is technically possible, without fully considering the human consequences. Victor does not prepare himself to care for a living being with thoughts and emotions. His immediate rejection of the creature shows that he viewed the project more as an experiment than a life. Shelley’s message is clear: even if one can create life, doing so without compassion and accountability leads to harm.
More than the act of creation, Shelley explores the responsibilities a creator has toward the being they bring into the world. Victor’s greatest failure is not his scientific method, but his refusal to care for his creation. After abandoning the creature, he leaves it to survive in a world that rejects it at every turn. The creature, desperate for connection and understanding, endures suffering and loneliness. He later explains, “I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?” This statement reveals not only his emotional pain but also his ability to understand and express his condition. Shelley presents him as thoughtful, observant, and capable of deep feelings, making him much more than a failed experiment.
This development raises an urgent ethical question. If humans were to create clones, would they treat them with the dignity and care they deserve? Would they be accepted as equals or rejected as unnatural? Shelley suggests that neglecting the emotional and social needs of created life results in deep suffering and destructive consequences. The creature’s acts of violence are not born from evil but from rejection, isolation, and grief. Victor’s lack of responsibility ultimately causes the deaths of his younger brother William, the innocent Justine, his best friend Henry, and his bride Elizabeth.
Victor’s second major ethical failure occurs when he refuses to create a companion for the creature. At first, he agrees to the request but later destroys the unfinished female being, fearing the consequences of her existence. He asks himself whether he should “set loose upon the earth a daemon” who might threaten the survival of humankind. This fear echoes modern concerns about cloning and artificial life. People worry about what might happen if such beings do not fit into society or pose a threat to the natural order. However, Victor does not seek to understand or resolve the issue. Instead, he makes the decision based on fear and guilt, without considering the creature’s point of view. His choice causes even greater suffering and leads directly to Elizabeth’s murder.
Shelley uses this scene to highlight the dangers of moral cowardice. Victor does not attempt to guide or support his creation. Rather than take responsibility, he runs from the consequences of his actions. This kind of fear-driven decision-making remains relevant today. Scientists and leaders may avoid confronting the ethical complexities of cloning by ignoring the emotional and social needs of those affected. Shelley warns against such avoidance and urges a more humane, responsible approach to science.
In conclusion, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a powerful reflection on the ethical consequences of unchecked scientific ambition. Victor Frankenstein’s story shows that the creation of life, whether through reanimation or cloning, brings with it deep moral responsibilities. Shelley warns that scientific progress, when separated from compassion and responsibility, can bring suffering rather than enlightenment. As science continues to move closer to the possibility of human cloning, her novel challenges us to think carefully about the world we are shaping. It asks not only what we can create, but how we will treat what we create. Ultimately, Frankenstein teaches that creating life is never a neutral act. It demands care, accountability, and moral courage. Without these, the true monster is not the creation, but the one who brought it to life without love.