Is Frankenstein Guilty of Crimes Againts Nature Research Paper

Is Frankenstein Guilty of Crimes Againts Nature - Research Paper moralBut this proposition of Frankensteins aversion against nature can be challenged by a simple rhetorical question, Does Frankenstein create a real monster? Textual evidences ultimately show that Doctor Frankenstein has non created a real monster as per the assumption that man cannot grasp the secrets of life and death kind of his ignorance about how to nurture his putz that apparently looks like an evil causes the final havoc he suffers in the end of the novel. By successfully creating a childlike imitative being, in the very first house he proves that the secrets of life and death are obviously knowledgeable by man. Meanwhile he nullifies the premise that seeking the secrets of life and death is nothing profane. But Frankensteins true crime is that he abandons his creature immediately after its birth. Obviously this crime is caused by his ignorance about his responsibility that greater knowledge imposes upon him. therefore Frankenstein commits crime against nature by refusing to play the motherly role of nurturing the creature but not by seeking the secrets of life.Mary Shellys scheme to humanize the monster essentially refutes the claim that man should not, more accurately cannot, achieve knowledge beyond what nature allows. The horrible look and ferocious appearance of Frankensteins creature are not enough to prove his failure to achieve the unknowledgeable. Indeed his success lies in his ability to create a being that can learn that possesses a mind and the essence of man. Frankenstein commits crime against his creature by abandoning it. Indeed his crime does not seem to be a deliberate one. sooner it evolves from his ignorance about the truth of his creatures nature. If Frankenstein were responsible enough, instead of being repulsed by the creatures horrible look he could train him to be socialized. But like