Is Victor's Creation Good or Evil?

As part of our in class seminar this week, an argument that arose was whether the creature was good or evil, despite killing Victor’s loved ones. Those who argued that we can sympathize with the creature mainly argued that the murders were simply an eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. They argued that the creature is good by nature, but that his environment and upbringing led him to violence and that therefore, he cannot be blamed for the crimes. The main quote that supports this position is “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.” (Shelley 89). What needs to be taken into account, however, is that the quote is said by the creature, and therefore subject to bias. When the creature was observing the De Lacey family, he unintentionally based his emotions upon theirs. “When they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathized in their joys.” (Shelley 101). It may therefore be argued that the reason he helped them in their daily tasks was to make them happy, which in turn would make him happy, instead of doing so simply because he was “benevolent and good” by nature. We therefore cannot know with certainty whether he was good by nature or not. What we do know is that he committed acts that would classify him as evil. No matter how miserable and alone the creature felt, he still had the freedom to choose, and he chose murder. In fact, it even seemed as if the creature enjoyed killing. “I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph” (Shelley 127). There are no circumstances under which murder is warranted. Outcasts in our society today that some may argue have every reason to commit crimes have to suffer the consequences, so why shouldn’t the creature?  These facts lead me to believe that the monster is in fact evil.

A thoughtful point that was brought up during the discussion is that since the creature is not accepted into society, he should not have to abide by the rules of society. While abstractly that is a valid point, it does not answer the question. We were debating whether the creature was evil or good. Someone’s status as good or evil is not determined by how well he/she follows the rules of society, but rather morally. From a moral standpoint, murdering (directly or indirectly) William, Justine, Clerval, Mr. Frankenstein, and Elizabeth is plainly evil regardless of the rules of society. Another argument can be made that what is morally right depends on societal norms and that, since the creature does not belong in society, he does not have to abide by that society’s moral standards. From the novel, however, we have learned that the creature thinks rationally and exhibits the same mental capacities as humans. Therefore, if the creature thinks like a human being, he should be held by the same moral standards.

I believe that despite the several passages that make the audience want to sympathize with the creature, he is not good. While it is possible and reasonable to argue that the creature lies in the “grey” area, for the reasons stated above I believe that the creature can be regarded as evil (based on his actions).