Jekyll and Hyde

Throughout The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there are many interesting moral cases presented.  Not only is there the debate on whether certain actions were moral, but also the question of which characters presented certain classic categorical positions on making ethical decisions.

Dr. Jekyll, for example, seems to follow a theory of virtue ethics.  Instead of looking at end-results, or what the law said was right and wrong, he followed his own moral compass.  He saw who he was as a person, and instead of accepting the shortcomings of man, he instead couldn't live with what he believed was a moral duality.  So in order to have a good public reputation, and continue his private downfalls, he created his potion.  For Dr. Jekyll, he saw what good virtues and flaws he had, and came up with a way to live with both.  This was his moral decision through virtue ethics.

I feel that as a reader, I'm supposed to have sympathy for Dr. Jekyll, but it seems he brought his downfall on himself.  He claimed to have "noble" intentions in the beginning, but how noble is it really to continue a lifestyle you believe to be wrong, simply under a personality through which you won't be recognized?  To be fair, the mixture didn't work as he'd intended.  It didn't make one purely good and one purely evil person: it simply created the latter.  A second identity through which he could release his ill desires.  His true self was not magically remedied of the evil he believed to rest within him.

I think part of the reason I am so inclined to have very little pity for Dr. Jekyll is because he was aware of his actions, and allowed himself to justify them.  Even if his drinking of the potion was initially for the good of humanity as well as for the good of himself, he eventually started to lose control of the situation.  Once he began to have less control over Hyde's actions, he should've disposed of the ingredients immediately.  By allowing himself to continue, he saw what he believed was morally right, and then ignored it.  That adds an interesting component to the moral decisions in the novel.

In our group meeting, we discussed how Dr. Jekyll's perceived character changed throughout the novel.  At first, he was morally upright and seen to be an ethically good character.  However, his connection with the mysterious Mr. Hyde, particularly the forged letter, added suspicion to his character.  Finally, when it is revealed that he and Mr. Hyde are one and the same, he is proven to be one of the most morally-flawed characters in the novel.

Mr. Utterson seemed to be a bit more of a consequentialist.  As one of the most morally-consistent people in the story, he acts in accordance with what he believes to be best for his friends.  The author shows his thought process throughout the story, and in making decisions whether or not to visit Dr. Jekyll, or on when to read Mr. Lanyon's letter, he considered how each would affect his friends, and made his decisions accordingly.

As far as duty-based ethics goes, it is hard to find a character that perfectly represents this.  Other than the policeman perhaps, there weren't many characters who were purely or strongly motivated by following the law.  Most of the novel's characters were motivated by their own desires or by the people around them.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde certainly had some interesting perspectives on moral decision-making.  Each character was motivated by something different.  As with the film Source Code, I believe that our perspective as an audience changes based on our narrator.  Different points of view can justify different actions, and different motivations behind moral decisions.  I think one argument presented through novel is the author's answer to the question, Who decides what is morally right?  I believe that Stevenson is of the opinion that it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves, and to try to do so selflessly.