Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
When addressing the confrontation of science and humanity, a serious question arises: Is there a balance between the detriments caused by the science and its contributions to the welfare of society? At the present moment, it is seems to be an affirmative “no”. Sadly enough the creativity of science is often directed at the destruction of humankind. The creation of technology of mass destruction has become a veritable threat to human existence on the planet Earth. In this respect, the main goal of scientists was not to preserve [?] human existence and welfare but to reach their ambitions, which was explicitly illustrated in Kipphardt’s “In the Matter of J. R. Oppenheimer” and Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. The scientists depicted in both texts were deeply involved in scientific exploration that turned out to be disastrous for humanity. Hence, the scientific curiosity and narcissistic ambitions that drove them to formulate new discoveries hindered their realization of the deplorable consequences.
Both texts under consideration reveal moral and ethical contradictions as the result of scientific creation. In Kipphardt’s play, it is possible to pursue the development of Oppenheimer’s outlook on the value of the invention of the nuclear weapon. Being considered as the father of the atomic bomb, he was happy that the bomb was technically successful. He understood the role of the nuclear weapon as a means of protection but not as a means of mass destruction. The price of the scientific victory resulted in a complete devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Taking a deeper look at Kipphardt’s play, it is plain to see that Oppenheimer was initially against the design of the nuclear weapon. Looking at his brainchild through dark filters, he enjoyed this dangerous beauty and he did not even suspected that this invention could bring so many sufferings to people (Kipphardt 197, scene 1).
Main body
Dr. Frankenstein also accepted the priority of scientific and personal ambition over the ethical considerations and potential outcome. By creating the monster, Victor failed to consider the consequences for society and the fate of the Creature. His scientific curiosity and narcissistic ambitions prevailed over reason; his desire to overcome natural laws and to gain the power to create something that no one had managed to create before him. When describing his brainchild and his victory over the natural laws, Frankenstein says:
No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing as even Dante could not conceived (Shelley 40).
The connection of science and morality is one of the most complicated issues of our time, especially as both notions are considered mutually exclusive. All too often, scientific projects are created with the aim to gain power or recognition rather than benefitting society. In this respect, the scientific world and humanity are separated. When addressing Oppenheimer’s achievement, its real goal was nothing in comparison to the moral struggle the scientist witnessed after the war. He did not manage to reconcile those two opposite notions, as the atomic bomb creation was not morally approved. In his turn, Frankenstein did not take into account social interests at all thus paying attention to personal problems only.
It is necessary to admit that science have always depended on political issues, as numerous inventions have been created for political control. In this way, Oppenheimer’s nuclear weapon turned into a powerful tool for dictating the ideas where the political regime tried to subject the best minds of the scientific world. This is why Oppenheimer became the victim of the political collusion, which could be pursued in the play. When he realized that, he was involved into the political completion between two powerful countries. “Oppenheimer’s subsequent, tireless activity within the corridors of power, particularly his effort to prevent the design of the H-bomb…made him the symbol of the scientific community’s meddlesome presumption among dissenting element of military and national security apparatus” (Foster n. p.). In this way, the existed political regimes presented him as unconscious accomplice. In fact, Oppenheimer did want this bomb to be used; he himself declares that he was physicist, but politicians, or the military.
In contrast to Oppenheimer real case, the political issues are also represented in Shelley’s Frankenstein but different way. Investigating opposite meanings of the monster, which can be also comprehended as the image of terror in Gothic world, it is possible to refer to this notion allegorically and to accept this monster as the Hobbes’ political monster.
The eternal confrontation between science and nature has been always explained by natural curiosity and desire to oppose and to subject natural law. However, the analyzed texts show that controlling nature may turn out to be fatal for human race. Undoubtedly, both scientists achieved sensational advances in genetics and technology, but were they beneficial for society? It is a resounding no. Shelley’s fictional story accounts on how the scientist perceived the nature in that period and, judging on this, one could firmly state that science was the main enemy and the main tool for controlling the nature (Zwart 258). Frankenstein’s Creature is, thus, a calling to nature and Victors protest against the existed natural order. As for Oppenheimer, one day say that his invention enslaved nature and made it plead for mercy. The most striking thing in this story is that the bomb itself was alien to nature of science.
In both texts, the dialogue between science and theology also took place. Perhaps, the science-religion discourse is more vividly depicted in Kipphardt’s and Shelley’s works. In the course of development of science, since Oppenheimer explained his dismay by a phrase “science has known sin”, there appeared a tight dialogue between theology and science (McLaren 25). These opposite fields are united by one aspect – the faith in the creator and in the creation. Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, and Victor, as the creator of the monster, have faith only in their scientific power that can resist the divine laws.
The religious features were also presented in the literary works through the identification of both scientists with the Devil for whom humanity and mercy were not acceptable. Hence, Oppenheimer provided many comparisons with the Devil: “If the Devil himself were on the other side, one would have to reach an understanding with the Devil” (Kipphardt 259). But the only faith he has is that “in the ultimate power of common sense.” As for Frankenstein, there are much more issues on elaboration. In particular, both Victor and the monster can be compared with the fallen angels that failed to what humanity is and why science should be human. Throughout the text, one can witness different names for the Creature – the monster, the Devil – but not as human creature.
In the play, Oppenheimer stated, “one can have a scientific enthusiasm for a thing and, at the same time, as a human being, one can regard it with scientific horror” (Kipphardt 255). By this phrase, the creator of the atomic bomb explained the essence of science, which, sometime, did not imply that the scientist could be merciful as far as the epochal invention was concerned. In the matter of Frankenstein, his creation was absolutely deprived of humanity and usefulness for society; Victor, therefore, was also deprived of this feature, as he gave priority to his narcissistic ambitions. As a whole, both creations brought harm and death to society.
In the texts, it is possible to see how the scientists, finally, expressed their remorse concerning what they had done. Their realization and horror suffered by humans was carried out with the realization of another abhorrent thing – the distinction between science and destruction had been blurred. In this way, Oppenheimer and Frankenstein sacrificed human lives for the sake of scientific development that became as a kind of idol; science became their master where there is not place for humanity.
Conclusion
The mystery of discoveries and the miracle creation tempted Oppenheimer and Frankenstein who were tied to the chariot of their scientific exploration. They gained recognition and power; they made considerable contributions to the science but to the welfare of humanity. Pursuing the achievement of the scientist from different epochs, one could pursue that the confrontation of science and humanity are still on the world agenda.
Works Cited
Foster, Jacob. Love Among the Ruins. The Oxonian Review. 6.2 (2007). Web.
Kipphardt, In the matter J. R. Oppenheimer. Contemporary German Plays: The deputy. US: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001.
McLaren, Robert Bruce. Science and Contemporary Theology. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 22. 3. (1966): 25-27.
Shelley, Wollstonecraft Mary, and Butler, Marilyn. Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. UK: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Zwardt, Hub. Understanding Nature: Case Studies in Comparative Epistemology. US: Springer, 2008.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.