I wanted to respond to Luke’s post but was having issues through the website so I am posting it here.
I think this is an excellent question and one that there is no definitive answer to. The problem with this question, is that it is impossible to answer without putting a worth on the human life. But how can anyone dictate how much a human life is worth? What if the debate is between two people across the world that you will never meet having to die so that someone who is close to you lives? Are those two lives worth one? For some people, it might be. The question is inherently bias. It must be answered from an emotionless perspective, a perspective that is simply not human. One would have a completely differing answers to this question depending on the circumstances. It is because of this, that there can never truly be a correct answer to questions involving the worth of certain life over others.
I would also like to reply to Luke Chapman’s post from a military perspective first, and then an ethical one. As of today, in order for the creature to be deemed a legal target to which deadly force can be applied, all he would need to do is demonstrate an intent to kill and a means by which to kill. If the creature was caught in the act of murdering Victor’s brother, William, most moral philosophies, including the ones to which the American armed forces subscribe, would have authorized if not demanded force, most likely lethal, be deployed against him. However, when the creature revealed himself to Dr. Frankenstein and it became clear that he was responsible for the boy’s death, if the creature was not beyond a doubt conveying intentions to continue to murder people, legally he could be detained but not killed on the spot. Assuming the justice system imposed the same fate upon him as they did to Justine, I suppose the death penalty would have been a reasonable course of action following a trial by the governing bodies of the land. Of course, it would be unreasonable to try and detain the creature alone, but the assembly of a well-equipped and sizable party would have easily been able to overwhelm the monster. Unfortunately, Victor irresponsibly tries to deal with the situation alone. You mention that “If Frankenstein had destroyed the monster immediately, he would have been ending a life, but it would have been a life that he created and it would have been a life that was capable of evil things.” To this I respond that all of us are equally capable of committing atrocities, but until we are legitimately conspiring to realize such evils, we should not be punished by the authorities in power. Because the scenario is extraordinary, a circumvention of societal law is probably permissible though. However, even though a father is responsible for the act of creation, unless there is a guarantee that innocent people will be in imminent danger, it is not his place to decide if his sentient son should continue to live as in this case his child, the creature, was a free-thinking agent.