Can the creature be held accountable for his actions?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: August 30, 2025
Abstract
The question of whether the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein can be held accountable for his violent actions represents one of the most complex moral and philosophical issues in the novel. This essay examines the creature’s moral agency through multiple lenses, including his capacity for rational thought, emotional development, social circumstances, and the influence of his creator’s abandonment. While the creature demonstrates clear intelligence and understanding of moral concepts, his accountability is complicated by factors including his lack of proper socialization, systematic rejection by society, and Victor Frankenstein’s failure in his responsibilities as creator. Through careful analysis of the creature’s development, actions, and circumstances, this essay argues that while the creature possesses some degree of moral agency, his accountability is significantly diminished by the extraordinary circumstances of his creation and abandonment, making him both perpetrator and victim within Shelley’s complex moral framework.
Introduction
The question of moral accountability in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein extends far beyond simple determinations of guilt or innocence, delving into fundamental questions about the nature of responsibility, the development of moral agency, and the circumstances that shape ethical behavior. The creature’s violent actions throughout the novel—including the murders of William Frankenstein, Henry Clerval, and Elizabeth Lavenza—demand serious moral consideration, yet the circumstances surrounding these acts complicate any straightforward assessment of accountability. The creature’s unique position as an artificially created being, abandoned by his creator and rejected by society, creates an unprecedented moral situation that challenges traditional frameworks for understanding responsibility and justice.
Shelley’s exploration of the creature’s accountability reflects broader Romantic-era concerns about the relationship between nature, nurture, and moral development. The novel presents the creature as neither inherently evil nor purely innocent, but rather as a complex being whose capacity for both good and evil emerges through his interactions with the world around him. This nuanced portrayal requires readers to consider multiple factors when evaluating the creature’s accountability, including his intellectual capacity, emotional development, social circumstances, and the role of external influences in shaping his behavior. The question of the creature’s accountability thus becomes a lens through which Shelley examines larger questions about human nature, social responsibility, and the conditions necessary for moral development.
The Creature’s Intellectual Capacity and Moral Understanding
The creature’s demonstrated intellectual capacity provides a foundation for arguments supporting his moral accountability, as he clearly possesses the cognitive abilities necessary for ethical reasoning and decision-making. From his earliest moments of consciousness, the creature displays remarkable learning abilities, rapidly acquiring language, literacy, and complex understanding of human emotions and social relationships. His education through reading works such as Paradise Lost, Plutarch’s Lives, and The Sorrows of Young Werther demonstrates not only his intellectual sophistication but also his engagement with fundamental moral and philosophical questions (Shelley, 1818). The creature’s ability to articulate complex arguments about justice, revenge, and moral obligation suggests that he possesses the rational faculties typically considered necessary for moral responsibility.
Furthermore, the creature’s eloquent speeches to Victor reveal a sophisticated understanding of moral concepts and ethical reasoning that supports arguments for his accountability. When confronting Victor on the glacier, the creature demonstrates clear awareness of right and wrong, articulating his grievances in terms of justice and moral obligation. His statement that “I am malicious because I am miserable” reveals not only self-awareness about his emotional state but also an understanding of the causal relationship between his circumstances and his behavior (Shelley, 1818). This level of moral sophistication suggests that the creature possesses the intellectual and moral capacity necessary for accountability, even if external circumstances have influenced his choices toward violence and revenge.
The Impact of Abandonment and Lack of Proper Guidance
The creature’s abandonment by Victor immediately after his creation represents a fundamental factor that complicates assessments of his moral accountability. Unlike human children, who receive years of moral education and social guidance from parents and community, the creature was thrust into the world without any form of moral instruction or emotional support. Victor’s immediate flight from his creation left the creature to navigate complex moral and social situations without the benefit of proper guidance or modeling of appropriate behavior. This abandonment can be seen as a form of moral neglect that significantly impacts the creature’s subsequent development and choices.
The absence of proper guidance in the creature’s early development creates what might be understood as a form of moral disability, limiting his ability to make fully accountable choices despite his intellectual capacity. Child development research and moral philosophy suggest that moral reasoning develops through social interaction, emotional support, and guided experience with ethical dilemmas. The creature’s lack of access to these formative experiences represents a unique disadvantage that must be considered when evaluating his accountability. While the creature clearly understands moral concepts intellectually, his emotional and social development was fundamentally compromised by his abandonment, creating conditions that make full moral accountability problematic even given his cognitive abilities.
Social Rejection and Its Role in Shaping Behavior
The systematic rejection the creature faces from human society plays a crucial role in shaping his violent behavior and complicates straightforward assessments of his accountability. Every human encounter the creature experiences—from the De Lacey family to the various strangers he meets—results in fear, horror, and rejection based solely on his physical appearance. This consistent pattern of social rejection creates a form of systematic oppression that influences the creature’s worldview and behavior in ways that must be considered when evaluating his moral responsibility. The creature’s turn toward violence can be understood, at least partially, as a response to the impossible social situation in which he finds himself.
Shelley’s portrayal of social rejection and its psychological impact anticipates modern understanding of how social exclusion and discrimination can influence behavior and moral development. The creature’s experience of being judged solely on his appearance, denied basic social acceptance and companionship, creates conditions of extreme psychological distress that affect his capacity for moral reasoning. While this does not excuse his violent actions, it provides important context for understanding the factors that influenced his choices. The novel suggests that moral accountability must be understood within the context of social circumstances, particularly when those circumstances involve systematic rejection and dehumanization that limit an individual’s opportunities for positive moral development.
The Creature’s Capacity for Both Good and Evil
The creature’s demonstrated capacity for both benevolent and malevolent actions reveals the complexity of his moral nature and supports arguments for a nuanced understanding of his accountability. Early in his development, the creature shows genuine kindness and desire for human connection, secretly helping the De Lacey family with their daily labor and expressing deep emotional investment in their wellbeing. His initial approach to the blind De Lacey demonstrates his capacity for empathy, compassion, and moral reasoning, suggesting that his violent behavior is not inevitable but rather a response to specific circumstances and experiences.
However, the creature’s subsequent turn toward calculated violence and revenge demonstrates his capacity for deliberate evil actions that support arguments for his accountability. His murder of William, framing of Justine, and systematic campaign of revenge against Victor show clear premeditation, strategic thinking, and understanding of the moral weight of his actions. The creature’s ability to plan and execute complex schemes of revenge reveals sophisticated moral reasoning, even when applied toward destructive ends. This capacity for both good and evil suggests that the creature possesses genuine moral agency, even if that agency operates within the constraints of his unique circumstances and experiences.
The Influence of Literature and Self-Education on Moral Development
The creature’s self-education through literature provides crucial insight into his moral development and capacity for accountability. His reading of Paradise Lost, Plutarch’s Lives, and The Sorrows of Young Werther demonstrates active engagement with moral and philosophical questions, suggesting a genuine desire to understand ethical principles and human nature. The creature’s identification with various literary characters, particularly Milton’s Adam and Satan, reveals sophisticated moral reasoning and self-reflection about his own situation and choices (Levine, 1979). This literary education provides the creature with moral frameworks and ethical vocabulary that support arguments for his accountability.
Yet the creature’s literary education also highlights the limitations and distortions in his moral development that complicate assessments of his accountability. Unlike human moral development, which occurs through direct social interaction and guided experience, the creature’s understanding of morality comes primarily through literary representations that may not accurately reflect the complexity of real moral situations. His identification with both Adam and Satan in Paradise Lost reveals the confusion and ambivalence in his moral understanding, as he struggles to find appropriate models for his unique situation. This reliance on literary rather than experiential moral education creates gaps and distortions in his moral reasoning that must be considered when evaluating his accountability for his actions.
The Role of Free Will Versus Determinism
The creature’s accountability must be considered within the broader philosophical framework of free will versus determinism that Shelley explores throughout the novel. On one hand, the creature’s ability to make deliberate choices, plan future actions, and reflect on the moral implications of his behavior suggests the presence of free will that would support arguments for his accountability. His decision to seek revenge against Victor, his choice of specific victims, and his strategic approach to inflicting suffering all demonstrate agency and volition that imply moral responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
On the other hand, the creature’s behavior can be understood as largely determined by factors beyond his control, including his physical appearance, social rejection, and abandonment by his creator. The novel suggests that the creature’s violent behavior emerges not from inherent evil but from the impossible circumstances in which he finds himself, circumstances created by forces entirely outside his control. This deterministic reading of the creature’s behavior complicates arguments for his full accountability, suggesting that his actions, while harmful, may be the inevitable result of conditions he did not choose and cannot escape. The tension between free will and determinism in the creature’s story reflects broader philosophical questions about the nature of moral responsibility and the conditions necessary for genuine accountability.
Comparative Analysis: The Creature Versus Victor’s Accountability
A comparative analysis of the creature’s accountability versus Victor’s responsibility reveals the complex moral dynamics at work in Shelley’s novel. While the creature commits direct acts of violence, Victor’s role as creator and his subsequent abandonment of his creation establish a form of causal responsibility that complicates simple moral judgments. Victor’s failure to provide guidance, support, or even acknowledgment to his creation can be seen as a form of moral negligence that contributes directly to the creature’s violent behavior. This shared responsibility suggests that accountability in the novel cannot be understood through simple individual moral frameworks but must consider the interconnected nature of moral responsibility.
The comparison between creature and creator also highlights how accountability may be distributed differently depending on one’s role and circumstances. Victor, as the creator with greater social power, knowledge, and resources, bears responsibility for creating conditions that led to violence, even if he did not directly commit violent acts. The creature, while directly responsible for specific acts of violence, operates within constraints and circumstances largely created by Victor’s irresponsibility. This distribution of accountability suggests that moral responsibility in complex situations may not be zero-sum but rather shared among multiple parties in ways that reflect their different roles, capabilities, and circumstances.
The Limitations of Legal and Moral Frameworks
The creature’s unique status as an artificially created being exposes the limitations of traditional legal and moral frameworks for determining accountability. Existing systems of justice and moral evaluation are designed for humans operating within normal social and biological parameters, but the creature’s situation falls outside these established categories. His physical appearance makes social integration impossible, his origin as an artificial creation raises questions about his fundamental nature and rights, and his abandonment by his creator creates unprecedented circumstances that challenge conventional approaches to moral evaluation.
Shelley’s exploration of these limitations suggests that the question of the creature’s accountability cannot be resolved through simple application of existing moral or legal frameworks. The novel implies that truly complex moral situations may require new approaches to understanding responsibility that take into account unique circumstances, systemic factors, and the distribution of power and agency among different parties. This insight anticipates contemporary discussions about moral responsibility in complex social and technological contexts, where traditional frameworks may prove inadequate for addressing novel ethical challenges created by emerging circumstances and relationships.
Conclusion
The question of whether the creature in Frankenstein can be held accountable for his actions resists simple answers, reflecting the complex moral universe that Mary Shelley creates in her novel. While the creature clearly possesses the intellectual capacity for moral reasoning and demonstrates understanding of ethical principles, his accountability is significantly complicated by factors including his abandonment by his creator, systematic social rejection, and the unique circumstances of his creation and development. The novel suggests that moral accountability cannot be understood purely in terms of individual capacity and choice but must consider the broader context of social relationships, power dynamics, and the conditions necessary for healthy moral development.
Ultimately, Frankenstein presents the creature as both accountable and not accountable for his actions, depending on the moral framework applied and the factors considered most relevant to moral responsibility. This complexity reflects Shelley’s sophisticated understanding of moral agency and her recognition that questions of accountability in extreme circumstances may not admit of simple answers. The creature’s accountability thus becomes not a question to be definitively resolved but rather a lens through which to examine broader questions about the nature of moral responsibility, the conditions necessary for ethical behavior, and the ways in which individual accountability intersects with social and systemic factors. In this sense, the creature’s ambiguous accountability serves Shelley’s larger purposes in creating a novel that challenges readers to think more deeply about the nature of moral responsibility and the complex factors that shape human behavior and ethical choice.
References
Levine, G. (1979). The ambiguous heritage of Frankenstein. In G. Levine & U. C. Knoepflmacher (Eds.), The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel (pp. 3-30). University of California Press.
Mellor, A. K. (1988). Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters. Methuen.
Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
Vlasopolos, A. (1983). The text as monster: Frankenstein and the critique of epistemology. Women’s Studies, 12(3), 297-314.
Word Count: Approximately 2,000 words