Kara Ireland
Dr. Benedict
ENGL 2174
20 November 2019
Distorted Truths: Ethics and Accountability in The Island of Dr. Moreau
Nearly every abhorrent misnomer in history has been rid of its corrosive and multifaceted truths by means of whitewashing. Whitewashing can be colloquially defined as hiding or refraining from addressing vices, crimes, or scandals through purposeful misrepresentations of data. It is unethical to intentionally skew data, but it is done in order to uphold white supremacy. British literature of the nineteenth century is largely characterized through the agency of upholding white supremacy. This era of literature has its own set of unethical concepts it frequently addresses which range from racism, sexism, to other creative ways to dehumanize any persons classified as nonwhite. Various samples of British literature serve as a reinforcement of white supremacy by providing reasoning for their discriminatory and invasive behaviors. The way British literature is depicted in that era is fully misled by justifications for their inhumane treatment of others; this concept saturates H.G. Wells’ The Island of Dr. Moreau. The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells draws attention to aspects of history often misremembered by illuminating ways white supremacists excuse their behaviors with false sentiments.
The primary themes within The Island of Dr. Moreau include the dilemma of categorizing man versus animal and an exploration of the moral or ethical parameters of experimentation. Dr. Moreau unapologetically experiments on animals through vivisection. He claims that through the diabolical and senseless torture of the various animals, he is contributing research towards “the study of the plasticity of living forms” (Wells 53). He equates his lack of ethics to the “temerity” that no one else possessed as well as comparing his vivisection to the transfusion of blood (Wells 53). Attributing such an act to the question of audacity is an egregiously dense way to view his abuse. Moreover, labeling his mutilation as a stroke of research is his primary motive to answer for his actions. He thinks highly of himself and his work as he describes his experiments as an “extraordinary branch of knowledge,” suggesting that what he was experimenting on were no different than “tyrants, criminals, and breeders of horses and dogs” (Wells 53). He does this while failing to realize all of those experiments are just as unethical as his, and using them as his way of absolving himself is inconsequential.
Edward Prendick is the protagonist and the only character who perceives Dr. Moreau’s antics as barbarous. He raises the question to Dr. Moreau, “where is your justification for inflicting all this pain,” hoping to gain some insight to his rationale (Wells 54). Dr. Moreau gives a detached reply that is in alignment with many of the racist ideologies of white supremacy, “so long as visible or audible pain turns you sick, so long as your own pain drives you, so long as pain underlies your propositions about sin … you are an animal” (Wells 54). Separating beings into the categorizations of animal and man is a method of escaping culpability. The fact that the creatures he is experimenting on are actually animals is not lost, but in disparaging their pain, he removes himself from an empathetic point of view; empathy is the biggest factor in white supremacy in terms of mistreatment. There is no grief to feel in witnessing or acknowledging torture if one does not validate the emotional or physical threshold of the party they are torturing.
Prendick is a representation of those who hold compassion for all life, whereas Dr. Moreau represents those who have selective adjustments for what constitutes their compassion. Prendick claiming he would drown himself “because that is better than being tortured by [Dr. Moreau]” demonstrates his empathy for the conditions of the Beast People (Wells 49). Prendick understands that performing these vivisections on beings that are incapable of giving consent is a form of evil. Furthermore, he understands that inflicting pain on entities that feel pain is evil as well, despite the fact that they are not men. He resists Dr. Moreau’s vindication for the former with “they were men—men like yourselves, whom you have infected with some bestial taint, men you have enslaved, and whom you still fear” (Wells 49). In this, Prendick highlights the visual discrepancies of the Beast People versus themselves; he maintains that despite their physical differences, they should not be subjected to his experimentation.
Prendick’s observations have parallels with slavery in the nineteenth century. There were plenty of white settlers who did not view Africans as men or women equivalent of themselves, thus providing similar reasonings for their mistreatment. Demoting a group of people to an animalistic state is the recurring way to absolve themselves of guilt. White supremacy is systemic in the ways that it alters specific facts in order to glean sympathy or understanding for their callous interactions. Just as Dr. Moreau is able to completely legitimize his actions and talk his way out of accountability for his heinous actions, other scientists and psychologists of the Victorian era have a similar perspective.
James Marion Sims, the father of gynecology, conducted nonconsensual experiments on enslaved women without anesthesia. At the core of Sims’ experimentation was the belief of superiority to the African women; to that merit, Dr. Moreau clearly believes he is also superior to the animals and Beast People inhabiting the island. According to medical biographers MJ West and LM Irvine, there is a consensus amongst feminist scholars, historians and political activists that have described Sims as “benefiting from routine experimentation and exploitation of the region’s enslaved population” (42). This description could also be applied to Dr. Moreau seamlessly. It is not common knowledge that Sims performed under such cruel circumstances, and yet his legacy retains accolades for his discoveries in gynecology. This is the same reaction Dr. Moreau hopes to realize in his feats of vivisection; he desperately wants media attention for becoming “the first man to take up this question armed with antiseptic surgery, and with a really scientific knowledge of the laws of growth” (Wells 53). Additionally, controversy surrounds Sims in terms of buying and experimenting on “Negroid slave women” with intentions to later treat “wealthy Caucasoid women” (West & Irvine 43). Incidentally, Dr. Moreau has ulterior motives too, claiming “the possibilities of vivisection do not stop at a mere physical metamorphosis” and subsequently theorizing about the lengths of his work he had not yet achieved towards helping the human form (Wells 54). For both of these examples, such details would be excluded from the narrative when addressing their research, and it is harmful to the original context. Praise without acknowledgment of their methods works to erase the misery of those exploited while glorifying the actions that helped disable their voices. This example is used deliberately because Dr. Moreau exhibits the same absence of accountability in his explanations for his reasoning.
Upon consideration of how history is often misremembered, it can often be illustrated in the narrative surrounding the circumstances. Dr. Moreau validates himself by speaking Latin, “hi non sunt homines, sunt animalia qui nos habemus,” a phrase that loosely translates to “these people are not human beings, they are animals that we have” (Wells 50). He continues with his own interpretation that being vivisected is “a humanizing process,” much like how colonists under the same persuasion tweaked the perception of their counterparts to substantiate their abuse (Wells 50). White supremacy is taught, and simultaneously explained away, evidenced in Dr. Moreau’s statement, “spare me those youthful horrors … Montgomery used to be just the same” (Wells 50). This admission implies that Montgomery had been previously disposed to the horrors Dr. Moreau was conducting on the island, but had been indoctrinated to believe otherwise through a one-sided account of explanation. Dr. Moreau shares with Prendick that he merely “asked a question, devised some method of getting an answer, and got a fresh question” (Wells 56). An explanation like that sounds harmless to the naked ear, and it effectively removes all villainy from himself; this is how white supremacy is maintained. Throughout Dr. Moreau’s explanation, Prendick reports it being “very simple and convincing,” and an oversimplification of several factors is often another reason why certain accounts of history soon become unreliable (Wells 50). Indoctrination of this sort is why history is misrepresented, because conflicting explanations exist in the same spheres. Being susceptible to only one explanation is why many things are so easily accepted. Explanations like this breed apologists for heinous acts; it is because the semantics intentionally mislead.
White supremacy functions as the primary aide for excusing barbarous crimes against humanity. As a work of British literature, The Island of Dr. Moreau is tainted by these ideologies because it is a product of its time period. The explanations granted for their actions work to justify and shroud the truth in excuses. Dr. Moreau found no fault in his endeavors due to the progressivism that was promised in his scientific field. The lack of empathy is the primary agent for successfully evading moral responsibility in their experiments. Like the Beast People, those who are deemed powerless in the system of white supremacy fall victim to its hand. However, taking advantage of subjects that cannot defend themselves properly against such actions is an inherent ethical issue. While praising the scientific advancements admittedly made, history becomes skewed to be more palatable. The truth of these innovative discoveries is that they were achieved through the exploitation of vulnerable parties and should be tentatively celebrated; just as Prendick addressed Dr. Moreau’s apathetic behaviors and ideologies, the circumstances for their fame should be brought to the attention of those praising them.
Works Cited
Wells, H. G. The Island of Dr. Moreau: Unabridged. Dover Publications, 1996.
West, M. J., and L. M. Irvine. “The Eponymous Dr James Marion Sims MD, LLD (1813-1883).” Journal Of Medical Biography, vol. 23, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 35–45. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0967772013480604