Vivisection, a question explored by many different scholars, including religious, scientific, and literary, has generated fierce debate since its inception. Philosophers as early as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas began to address questions regarding humanity's relationship with animals, which had great implications in shaping social views on vivisection in later years. Such views, however, were shaken when Darwin began publishing his work outlining the relationship between animals and humans. H. G. Wells, a science student and acclaimed science fiction writer, uses a unique setting in his novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau, to question proponents of vivisection. Wells attacks the act of vivisection by providing the reader with aural descriptions of the suffering experienced by animals, satirizing the traditional Christian belief system, and discussing Darwinism and its implications on the relationship between animals and humans. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One of the primary means by which Wells attacks vivisection is through his descriptions of the pain that animals are forced to endure. These descriptions are important because they evoke empathy in the reader. Wells focuses his descriptions on stimulating the reader's auditory senses to elicit such empathy. For example, Prendeck, in describing the puma's howl, states, "A high-pitched, hoarse cry of animal pain came from the enclosure behind us. Its depth and volume testified to the puma. I saw Montgomery flinch" (36). The diction used here, such as "high-pitched" and "hoarse," is important because it allows the reader to actually hear the cougar's cries rather than just read about them. Furthermore, by hearing these cries, the reader empathizes with the cougar to a greater extent because he essentially feels the pain the cougar must feel through these cries. Montgomery's gasp is also important because it reveals to the reader that even after several years Montgomery has not become accustomed to these cries of pain, that is, the pain felt every time by the animals is real, and the howls and moans never penetrate the air. background.Prendick continues to describe these howls when he states: "I found that the cries were singularly irritating, and increased in depth and intensity as the afternoon wore on. They were painful..." (37). The fact that each of the cries is "singularly irritating" is significant because Wells points out that each cut during the vivisection process is extraordinarily painful. This idea elicits further empathy because the reader sees that the cougar feels a sharp, sharp pain every time he yelps instead of getting used to it and feeling a general, dull pain. Furthermore, Wells uses this idea of ​​uniqueness to convey to the reader that animals are unique beings just like humans, and therefore the act of vivisection should not be justified. Eventually, these screams become so loud that Prendeck begins to feel the pain. The pain he talks about is important on two levels. On the surface, this pain simply arises from the intensity and shrillness of the screams and howls that Prendeck hears. On a deeper level, the pain Prendeck feels actually represents the puma's true pain, that is, the pain resulting from vivisection is transferred from the puma to Prendeck through the acoustic medium. Ultimately, Prendeck can no longer bear the screams when he states, "The emotional appeal of those screams grew upon me steadily, grew at last into an expression of suffering so exquisite that I could no longer bear it in that confined room" ( 37) . At this point, thereader is already empathizing with the puma. Wells' writing is strategic here because, by making Prendeck leave the room, Wells effectively forces the reader out of the scene, leaving him with echoes of the cougar's worst cries and wondering what will become of her. In addition to using such descriptions to attack vivisection, Wells turns his novel into a religious satire to debunk the philosophies of those who support vivisection through religious beliefs. Before exploring the satirical aspects of the novel, however, it is important to understand Christianity's relationship and attitude towards non-human animals. Overall, as Rod Preece, professor of political philosophy at Wilfrid Laurier University, states, "...the reputation of the Christian tradition has fared poorly in the burgeoning literature on the history of attitudes toward nonhuman animals" (399). The reason for this may be due to the writings of early scholars, particularly those of St. Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher and theologian of the Church. In one of his most famous works, Summa Theologica, published in the mid-to-late 13th century, St. Aquinas states: "According to the divine ordinance, the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for the 'man. Through a more just disposition of the Creator, both their life and their death are subject to our use" (20). use by mankind. Many have analyzed Christian tradition by examining a key passage from the Book of Genesis, which states: “Then God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; dominate over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over all living things that move on the earth" (149). Most scholars have interpreted this passage to represent how the Christian tradition despises animal rights and justifies the use of vivisection. These thoughts continued to resonate throughout the late 19th century, when The Island of Doctor Moreau was published. For example, Edward Evans, author and educator of the time, interprets the passage from Genesis when he writes: «To the being thus arbitrarily created is given absolute dominion over every beast of the earth and over every bird of the sky, which must be his for food. They are handed over to his supreme and irresponsible control, without the slightest injunction of kindness or the slightest hint of duty or obligation towards them" (89). Therefore, Evans, like many other authors and scholars of the time, interprets the passage of Genesis in a way that mirrors the ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, who was frustrated that scholars rationalized their reasoning through Christianity and the idea of ​​a centralized, planned world in which God created humanity with one. purpose, directly attacks the source. That is, Wells creates a satire of religion to debunk the source of justification for the many scholars who refer to religion when justifying vivisection. At the beginning of the novel, Wells' question about the central importance of human life, and therefore of traditional Christianity, becomes apparent. Prendeck's emotions and tone are often dissonant with the events surrounding him. For example, after observing his peers scuffle in the lifeboat and eventually fall into the sea to their deaths , Prendeck states, “They sank like stones. I remember laughing at it and wondering why I was laughing. The laughter suddenly struck me as something from the outside. "(2). First, these thoughts manifested at the beginning of the novel disturb the reader as Prendeck finds humor in the death of his fellow man. By intertwining humor with death,Wells uses this situation to force the reader to question the seriousness and importance of human life. Furthermore, this incident introduces Wells' idea regarding the lack of sacredness or sanctity in humanity's existence, that there may not be a divine figure who placed humanity in a centralized and planned life. Wells continues to attack traditional Christianity and the idea of ​​a divine figure through other characters. For example, Montgomery, after discussing his life or lack thereof for the past twenty years, exclaims, "What's it all for, Prendeck? Are we bubbles blown by a child?" (111). First, burst bubbles are generally thought to move in a random motion without any significance to their path. Wells uses these bubbles to create such images and represent the lives of humanity, and thus argues that our lives are not necessarily of central importance to the functioning of the world. Additionally, Well creates a mockery of the idea of ​​a divine figure by having a child blow bubbles. What kind of planning is devised for human life if a child blows these bubbles randomly? These ideas once again allow Wells to spark thoughts of confusion and uncertainty in the reader's mind. Wells forces the reader to look critically at those who advocate vivisection through religion, especially when this justification is based on assumptions such as the unique importance of human life and the presence of a divine figure, both of which Wells makes tenuous through his satire. Wells continues this satire on religion when discussing the laws of the Beast People. The Beast People continually chant: "Do not go on all fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? Suck not Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men? Not east Meat or Fish; that is the Law. We are not Men ?Do not claw at the Bark of Trees; are we not Men who pursue other Men? (61) These laws are analogous to the Ten Commandments established in the Christian Bible (310). ways. First, by looking at the written structure of the laws of the Beast People and the Ten Commandments, one can see that both are written in short statements that prevent the follower from performing certain actions. While the Ten Commandments repeat the phrase "thou shalt not," the laws of the Beast People repeat "do not". Furthermore, similar to the traditional Christian belief system, the Beast People are encouraged to repeat these laws. Wells is once again creating a satire of religion through the laws of the Beast People. Indeed, when Prendeck encounters these laws for the first time, he states, "I realized that I had to repeat this idiotic formula. And then the craziest ceremony began" (60). Wells directly conveys his own thoughts on religion through Prendeck's opinions. Words like “idiot” and “insane” serve as caustic remarks against traditional Christianity. Once again, Wells, attacking the source of logic, convinces his readers that religion cannot serve as a justification for vivisection. In addition to satirizing religion, Wells explores Darwinism, which serves as a third angle of attack against vivisection. Although Christianity had convinced many that vivisection was rationalized because God created animals for humanity's use, these views were suddenly called into question when Darwin published his research on the relationship and bonds between humans and animals . Darwin proposed that man evolved from animals and that there was an irrefutable link of common descent between the two. Specifically, in his work The Descent of Man, Darwindescribes the similarities between man and animal when he writes: Everyone has the same senses, intuitions and sensations - similar passions, affections and emotions, even the most complex ones such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude and magnanimity; they practice deception and are vindictive; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule and even have a sense of humor; they feel wonder and curiosity; possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, association of ideas and reason... (The Descent of Man, 89) Darwin therefore draws great similarities between animals and man, especially for regarding feelings and emotions. This is important because, as discussed below, Wells places great emphasis on showing how both the Beast People and humans return to their baser instincts or emotions, which reveals the direct influence of Darwinism in Wells' work. Thus, Darwin's work clearly revolutionized society's views regarding the treatment of animals, influencing and shaping the thinking of many scholars and authors of the time. For example, Thomas Hardy, novelist and poet, writes: The discovery of the law of evolution, which revealed that all organic creatures belong to one family, shifted the focus of altruism from humanity to the entire collectively conscious world. Therefore the practice of vivisection, which could have been defended while it was believed that humans and animals are essentially different, was left without any logical argument in its favor. (11)Hardy argues that if animals and humans were different, vivisection could have been rationally defended. However, now that it has been clearly demonstrated that the two are not different, no logic can be used to justify vivisection, which is what Wells emphasizes through his novel. The theme of Darwinism becomes immediately evident from the beginning of the novel when Prendeck discovers that the ship that saved him is headed from Africa to Hawaii (7). This is significant because the journey traces what many believe to be humanity's path of migration and evolution. Furthermore, Wells uses this plot structure to foreshadow his discussion of Darwinism later in the novel. Wells wants to incorporate Darwinism into all aspects of the book because this allows him to introduce the topic of Darwinism into the reader's mind before they even begin to read about vivisection. Therefore, Wells reinforces the mind early on with the connections between animals and humankind so that when the reader gets to the vivisection, the descriptions will be even more terrifying and evoke greater empathy. Wells further discusses Darwinism while drawing parallels between Moreau's explanations of animals and the disposition of humanity. For example, Moreau, when discussing with Prendeck the details of his experimentation, states: "...immediately after making them, they appear to be indisputable human beings. It is afterwards, as I observe them, that persuasion fades. The first animal trait, then another, crawls to the surface and stares at me..." (81). Therefore, animal instincts always seem to dominate and resurface. This phenomenon is analogous to Wells' descriptions of the human characters in the novel. For example, Prendeck's thoughts and actions, after hearing the puma, shed light on the innate human disposition: "...but their constant resurgence finally upset my equilibrium altogether. I tossed aside a cradle of Horace which I was reading, and I started clenching my fists and biting my lips and pacing around the room" (37). The pain the cougar feels affects Prendeck strongly, almost as if he feels a direct connection to the cougar. Furthermore, Prendeck's actions here mirror those of what is generally attributed to animals.., 2005.