The Morality of Science in  The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Essay Example

📌Category: Books, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
📌Words: 1211
📌Pages: 5
📌Published: 14 April 2022

In the novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the author uses the idea of duality to highlight the ambiguous concept of moral virtue and malevolence within both a person and a society. Consequently, the book is narrated from the perspective of a neutral arbiter, Mr. Utterson, representing the reader, who undertakes the strange case of what is “right.” These dualities are, most likely, derived from the period's ongoing struggle between Religion and Science, specifically the Roman Catholic Church and Charles Darwin. The author incorporates this ambiguous struggle in the book through Mr. Utterson’s encounters, specifically the duality of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the differing ethics of Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon. The author does this to leave the reader in the same position as Mr. Utterson after the conclusion of the book, to decide what is “right.”

Throughout all of civilization, society is held together by the construct of a cultural moral framework. This framework serves as a guideline as to what is considered “right” and what is considered “wrong.” This idea is self-evident when considering religion and its influences on culture are directly related to its moral system. Hypothetically, what happens if a differing framework becomes adopted by the same culture derived from religion. This event has happened and happened during the life of the author, as Religion clashed with Science. This event is represented in the novel as a duality of ethics between Dr. Lanyon and Dr. Jekyll. Lanyon takes the role of a religious and righteous scientist, while Jekyll portrays a purely scientific person, one that is driven to understand for the sake of being able to understand. This dual is introduced as just a common scientific contradiction, “‘They have only differed on some point of science,’ he thought; and being a man of no scientific passions (except in the matter of conveyancing), he even added: ‘It is nothing worse than that!’” (Stevenson, Chapter 2). This simple contradiction is revealed to be the formal dual within the novel separating Lanyon and Jekyll on the “virtue of transcendental medicine”(Stevenson, Chapter 9).  

From the perspective of Lanyon, this “simple” contradiction follows, “‘I never saw a man so distressed as you were by my will; unless it were that hide-bound pedant, Lanyon, at what he called my scientific heresies. Oh, I know he’s a good fellow — you needn’t frown — an excellent fellow, and I always mean to see more of him; but a hide-bound pedant for all that; an ignorant, blatant pedant.” (Stevenson, Chapter 3). From this, it is apparent that Jekyll proves that Lanyon's scientific ideas are still rooted and bound by the Church. This is due to Jekyll’s claim that his studies are “heresies” as well as calling Lanyon a “pedant.”  Relating Lanyon’s claim that the “transcendental medicine” is the work of heresies shows that Lanyon considers the study of transcendental concepts as taboo. This taboo can be directly linked to the Churches philosophy of chasing a higher being or God which falls in line with Lanyon’s actions. This detail of a taboo study is what Jekyll believes is binding Lanyon from farthing scientific discoveries, the reason why Jekyll calls Lanyon a “pedant.” Lanyon’s actions can be described as a traditionalist with regards to the adoption of science in a religious moral framework. Where Lanyon believes that science is a tool to help define his own culture, the religious one.

From the perspective of Jekyll, his studies follow, “two natures that contended in the field of my consciousness, even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both; and from an early date, even before the course of my scientific discoveries had begun to suggest the most naked possibility of such a miracle, I had learned to dwell with pleasure, as a beloved day-dream, on the thought of the separation of these elements.” (Stevenson, Chapter 10). As Jekyll describes the study of his duality, he decides to attempt to define these two personalities on such a fundamental scale that he would be able to separate them. As described by Jekyll, the thought to separate himself into two elements came from only an observation. This concept of observation-based discovery is the fundamental principle of science to which when Jekyll adamantly follows it, contradicting a religious view, he does so with “pleasure.” Jekyll also notes this contradiction, “I was driven to reflect deeply and inveterately on that hard law of life, which lies at the root of religion and is one of the most plentiful sources of distress.”(Stevenson, Chapter 10). From just Jekyll’s account, it is evident that his ethics only fall in line with Science as a moral framework, that of the progress of understanding anything and everything.

The duality of Religion and Science formulating a moral framework causes both in the novel and in real life many questions about what is “right.” As stated originally, for one to decide what is morally right and wrong, there must already be a moral framework in place. Therefore, for one to judge the morality of another's moral framework is fundamentally incorrect. As both Jekyll’s and Lanyon’s actions, in their own eyes, did nothing morally wrong with regards to the pursuit of science. This is the catalyst to the rift between Jekyll and Lanyon which produces the duality of Religion and Science.

Although both of the scientist's moral frameworks are fundamentally not “wrong,” the actions taken in response to the concoction that Jekyll’s studies produced show the impact each has toward each other. This is shown in the encounter between Lanyon and Hyde when Hyde transforms into Jekyll. After the event, Lanyon becomes deathly ill, likely due to the shattering realization of the power of the “transcendental medicine” being in direct opposition to his fundamental moral system. All the while, Hyde, who now is the main persona of Jekyll, feels nothing but pride over his accomplishments, “‘ And now, you who have so long been bound to the most narrow and material views, you who have denied the virtue of transcendental medicine, you who have derided your superiors — behold!’”(Stevenson, Chapter 9). This difference in reactions from the concoction strengthens the duality of both scientists’ morality, as although this is a miracle in terms of discovery, how each moral framework views it drastically differs.

Preceding the event of Hyde murdering Sir Danvers Carew, Jekyll contemplates his moral framework, Science, “Between these two, I now felt I had to choose. My two natures had memory in common, but all other faculties were most unequally shared between them.”(Stevenson, Chapter 10). To which Jekyll “preferred the elderly and discontented doctor, surrounded by friends and cherishing honest hope” (Stevenson, Chapter 10) and chose to live as Dr. Jekyll. Although through Jekyll’s account, it appears that he covered his morality to that of Lanyon’s, it becomes oblivious that it was only to mimic it as it was objectively better, not morally better, to live as Jekyll than to live as Hyde.

After the accounts of Jekyll that were left for Mr. Utterson, the novel ends. Mr. Utterson led the discoveries of the strange case but never once commented on who is “right” between his two old friends, Lanyon and Jekyll. Although the novel ends, the concept of how far science should be interpreted as a moral framework was and continues to be in our current society is still left up for debate. Since the paper from Charles Darwin on the concept of evolution, many societies have been contemplating on rewriting their cultural morality from both a religious and scientific background. To this end, the ending exemplifies the duality of the moral framework of Religion, Lanyon, and Science, Jekyll, and leaves it to the reader, in the place of Utterson, to decide who is “right” which is still as relevant as it was when published.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.