Another issue which Wells raises is the danger of practicing science without ethics. For Griffin, science is his religion and he is his own god. Therefore, anything done to further his research is allowable, no matter its effects on the general population. He never stops to consider if his research should be subject to some regulation, or if, once completed and successful, there should be practical limitations put on its use to keep it from being abused and misused. The fact that one can do something doesn't necessarily mean that one should do it; surely there are some lines which should not be crossed. One example in the real world which leaps to mind is prenatal screening for Down Syndrome: whatever it's originally intended use, it has resulted in the vast majority of pre-born babies with Downs Syndrome being aborted. In places like Iceland, their termination rate is close to 100%. As far as I'm concerned, this is no less than the deliberate eradication of persons with disabilities, something we had a problem with when it was the Nazis who were doing it. Science can only determine if something is possible- and why. It can't decide for us if that thing is moral, but far too many people use it as an excuse not to have to make uncomfortable or inconvenient ethical judgments.
When I left off discussing The Invisible Man last week, I had been pointing out how, due to feeling that he is separate from and superior to the rest of humanity, Griffin- the Invisible Man- has no compunction about using, hurting, and even killing other people. We see that, as the story progresses Griffin becomes more fanatical and extreme in his beliefs and behaviour. This is due, I believe, to the fact that he is becoming more used to using his invisibility and realizing more fully the power it affords him. Griffin has always been amoral, but as his list of crimes grows and no one is able to successfully stop him, he becomes bolder in his villainy. Although of course, The Invisible Man's circumstances are incredible, this escalation in violence and villainy has something to say about human nature. Sir John Dalberg-Acton famously once wrote that, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is true, but only to the extent that power frees an individual to act on impulses that he already possesses. In other words, corruption already exists within the heart of every man but it is usually constrained by something. For people of faith, this may be fear of God; even non-believers may be bound by morals derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Others may be motivated by the threat of legal repercussions, social stigma, or perhaps fear of physical punishment. Giving persons enough power that they no longer fear physical retaliation or other ramifications can lead to them giving way to temptations and impulses which they always possessed yet lacked the resources or opportunities to act upon. The true test of a man's character is how he behaves when he thinks he can get away with it. Another issue which Wells raises is the danger of practicing science without ethics. For Griffin, science is his religion and he is his own god. Therefore, anything done to further his research is allowable, no matter its effects on the general population. He never stops to consider if his research should be subject to some regulation, or if, once completed and successful, there should be practical limitations put on its use to keep it from being abused and misused. The fact that one can do something doesn't necessarily mean that one should do it; surely there are some lines which should not be crossed. One example in the real world which leaps to mind is prenatal screening for Down Syndrome: whatever it's originally intended use, it has resulted in the vast majority of pre-born babies with Downs Syndrome being aborted. In places like Iceland, their termination rate is close to 100%. As far as I'm concerned, this is no less than the deliberate eradication of persons with disabilities, something we had a problem with when it was the Nazis who were doing it. Science can only determine if something is possible- and why. It can't decide for us if that thing is moral, but far too many people use it as an excuse not to have to make uncomfortable or inconvenient ethical judgments. O.K., I'll have one more post on The Invisible Man in which I'll discuss the escalating level of violence in the novel and also do a general wrap up.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |