Frankenstein Vs. FrankenfoodsJoin now to read essay Frankenstein Vs. FrankenfoodsFrankenstein vs. FrankenfoodsIn modern day society scientific advancement is reaching all new levels. Since the scientific revolution people have thrived on making new innovations that make our day to day life easier, more productive, healthier, and most importantly efficient. One such scientific advancement is genetically modified foods otherwise known as Frankenfoods. For example, tomatoes that are grown for the purpose of consumption are now injected with various steroids and have their genomes altered in order to make the larger, tastier, and ‘better’ alternative for the consumer. This topic directly relates into the story of Frankenstein. In this book Vincent Frankenstein is faced with numerous dilemmas related to his creation of a monster out of used human parts. At one point in the novel Frankenstein has to contemplate whether or not he should create a mate for the monster. This question raises both moral and ethical questions because at what point does scientific advancement cross the line over into ones person self fulfillment and conquest? Scientific ambition whether it is genetically modified foods, creating a monster, or any other scientific endeavors must take this question into consideration before coming to fruition.
One of the tragedies for Victor Frankenstein is the refusal of other characters in the novel to recognize the monster as a full human being. This problem leads the monster to become anti-social and becomes a darker, more evil figure. In order to fulfill the monsters desires for a relationship or contact with other beings, the monster requests that Frankenstein create another monster to become his mate. Trying to scare Frankenstein for not creating his mate, the monster resorted to threats. The first monster threatened Frankenstein and even his family. If Frankenstein does create a companion for his first creation, he may be endangering others. If there is another monster, there will be twice the power and possibly twice the evil, which could hurt or kill his family. When and if Frankenstein commits the moral sin of creating another monster, he may be rid of both monsters forever. The monster promises Frankenstein that upon completion of his mate he will leave and never return. There is a chance that the monsters will not keep their promise and stay in Europe, evoking fear into the townsfolk. Frankenstein will not sacrifice his morality because of persuasion from a monster. Even though faced with this tough decision, Frankenstein chooses to destroy the monster for the good of the world. This moral dilemma directly relates to modern scientific issues and controversies. One example is that of genetically modified foods that are at the forefront of scientific advancement at the present day.
With an ever-growing population and the problems of world hunger, there has been a high demand for an increased food supply and a better food supply. Technology has been called upon to meet this challenge. The advent of genetically engineered foods, sometimes called transgenic crops or genetically modified foods is not a new concept, but the controversy over it is. Genetically modified foods are foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms that have had their genome altered through genetic engineering. No major health hazards have come to light since genetically modified food was introduced 13 years ago. Some Christians object in principle to genetically modified food, as an unacceptable intervention in Gods creation violating barriers in the natural world. Others see the potential for using Gods gift of our technical skills, but with some hesitation, on matters of food safety and environmental risk. Christians believe that all of Gods creatures are much more than their genes. To change one or two genes wouldnt make an organism less than itself, unless the change itself caused a major disruption. Claims are often made for the potential of genetically modified food to feed the world. If genes could be manipulated to enable staple crops to grow in marginal conditions, it might make a big difference too many countries which struggle to feed themselves.
Conducting medical research on humans is a tricky business. It is not the same thing as providing risky but proven medical treatments, which is done for patients. Medical experimentation is done to test subjects in order to further science. The experimenters may hope to help the subjects, but since the procedures are, by definition, not fully tested, they also have potential to cause great suffering and harm. Another form of controversial research testing is animal testing. There are many pros to animal testing. Sometimes it will put an animal through lots of pain, but it can save human lives. Scientists will inject a lab animal with a virus like AIDS or cancer, then try to cure them and if it works, they will have developed
The ethical and legal implications of the practice
A moral claim is a statement about the ethical and moral worth of what a human can do, and it may also have the potential to be true about anything.
A moral claim is an assertion about the moral worth of the actions carried out in human life. These actions are often moral, but they can also be immoral. But how can we deny ethical claims about humans?
You don’t need to take a moral claim seriously if a scientist wants to carry out research on people on Earth. That means you need to be realistic. If you believe that a person is good at something they’ve done, they’re well qualified to believe that. You don’t need to deny anyone else that. A moral claim isn’t about any actual person’s ability to do something. Moral claims may have a moral value.
It’s OK to go about denying human rights if you have a great deal of respect for others – the difference is you should be able to defend, not let that affect what you do for a living, as long as you’re doing it because you want to make sure you can save lives. You can do a little bit of good, and there’s no harm here. But it’s not enough unless people really want you to do something. When a scientist asks for permission to come to the lab to ask questions, a lot of people are very happy with that decision. The point is that if I come here to do something unethical, then I have a moral obligation to do that thing very carefully and not be a bad person.
A science journalist or journalist who wants to do more bad things will do fine. If no scientist wants to do that, they’ve told me too much.
When a scientist asked about my rights or wrongs, I’m not going to tell them because it will annoy them. This is a scientific question: “Do you believe in the right to abortion?” It’s not about me protecting you from rape, as a scientist who says abortion is wrong but to treat me as if I were raped. If not, don’t worry about it – unless it’s the right that makes you more likely to do what you want, I don’t want to be raped.
The problem with a moral claim
A moral claim about someone is about how they’ve done some things morally. It must not be about their legal actions: it must be about the way they’ve applied or the way the actions themselves have been conducted. It must be about the moral purpose you’re looking for.
The moral claim can include, for example, whether the scientist has made some kind of rational decision to take part in risky experiments: are they using their position or not? Maybe a simple answer means that the experiment may have caused the harms they’re discussing and are they making a good use of those harms. You can make