There is a similarity among these cases in that, all new ideologies appear to be immoral when first introduced. History has demonstrated that over the course of time, some of these philosophies will be reevaluated by successively modernized societies and that some ideas that were once considered immoral can gain significant merit. For instance, most societies, except for perhaps an alternate reality society of modern Nazi’s, can agree that Nazi beliefs will always be morally reprehensible.
All things considered, how is it possible for an entire society to morally justify the dehumanization of entire groups of people. Unlike the typical case, extreme manifestations of societal immorality, are not necessarily prompted by the values of the majority, …show more content…
When Galileo first sought to solidify the heliocentric model of the universe he was faced with opposition. “In the course of writing the Sunspot Letters [he was told]… that the Bible did not support Aristotle’s doctrine of immutability; in fact, [Cardinal Conti] said, Scripture seemed to argue against it. None of his experience parrying angry attacks from academics prepared Galileo for the intimations of heresy—a crime he considered “more abhorrent than death itself,’” (Sobel, 59). Throughout the duration of the roman inquisition, Galileo, despite being a religious man himself, was subject to many personal attacks for his ignorance of religion, and his proclivity to tackle theories that would be damaging to its reputation. Though Galileo’s ideas were looked upon with fear in his society, in the modern day, we have found his theory morally …show more content…
Perhaps the madness that was once associated with transplantation and biological engineering has become less prevalent as time has refined these once taboo practices by closing the gap between fiction and reality. Victor, who was, “capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter,” was seen with God like quality in his day, whereas in the present day it is commonplace for ER doctors to resuscitate lifeless patients with electric paddles (Shelley, 38). Oddly enough, these surgeons bestow life to the dead and no one bats an eye, but Victor Frankenstein does it and everyone loses their minds. The controversy subsists in the idea that there is a little bit of right and wrong in everything that one does. As implied in Frankenstein and demonstrated by modern doctors, it is acceptable to restore life to a vessel, but to attempt to create a vessel as Victor did is unethical past the point of small transplantation. The point is that people will not tolerate that which they do not understand. People are insecure with what makes someone who they are, generally, they have enough confidence to say that giving Person A the heart of Person B will not make Person A Person B, but when Dr. Frankenstein takes this a step further it is met with great distaste, even from a modern perspective. Eerily enough, this motif is echoed in the Joker’s reflection that, “[If] I tell the press that, like, a
All things considered, how is it possible for an entire society to morally justify the dehumanization of entire groups of people. Unlike the typical case, extreme manifestations of societal immorality, are not necessarily prompted by the values of the majority, …show more content…
When Galileo first sought to solidify the heliocentric model of the universe he was faced with opposition. “In the course of writing the Sunspot Letters [he was told]… that the Bible did not support Aristotle’s doctrine of immutability; in fact, [Cardinal Conti] said, Scripture seemed to argue against it. None of his experience parrying angry attacks from academics prepared Galileo for the intimations of heresy—a crime he considered “more abhorrent than death itself,’” (Sobel, 59). Throughout the duration of the roman inquisition, Galileo, despite being a religious man himself, was subject to many personal attacks for his ignorance of religion, and his proclivity to tackle theories that would be damaging to its reputation. Though Galileo’s ideas were looked upon with fear in his society, in the modern day, we have found his theory morally …show more content…
Perhaps the madness that was once associated with transplantation and biological engineering has become less prevalent as time has refined these once taboo practices by closing the gap between fiction and reality. Victor, who was, “capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter,” was seen with God like quality in his day, whereas in the present day it is commonplace for ER doctors to resuscitate lifeless patients with electric paddles (Shelley, 38). Oddly enough, these surgeons bestow life to the dead and no one bats an eye, but Victor Frankenstein does it and everyone loses their minds. The controversy subsists in the idea that there is a little bit of right and wrong in everything that one does. As implied in Frankenstein and demonstrated by modern doctors, it is acceptable to restore life to a vessel, but to attempt to create a vessel as Victor did is unethical past the point of small transplantation. The point is that people will not tolerate that which they do not understand. People are insecure with what makes someone who they are, generally, they have enough confidence to say that giving Person A the heart of Person B will not make Person A Person B, but when Dr. Frankenstein takes this a step further it is met with great distaste, even from a modern perspective. Eerily enough, this motif is echoed in the Joker’s reflection that, “[If] I tell the press that, like, a