How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
"Chance," [Montgomery] answered; "Just chance."
"I prefer to make my thanks to the accessible agent."
"Thank no one. You had the need, and I the knowledge […]. I was bored, and wanted something to do." (4.8-10)
Montgomery suggests that morality—or at least his morals—is wrapped up in personal interests. In short, there are no selfless acts. Of course, Montgomery could be lying his butt off as well. What do you think?
Quote #2
[Moreau] was simply howled out of the country. It may be he deserved to be, but I still think the tepid support of his fellow-investigators and his desertion by the great body of scientific workers, was a shameful thing. (7.20)
Prendick's ethical code suggests that you stick by your fellows. For example, scientists should support scientists in their endeavors no matter what. Of course, this comes before he gets a proper tour of the island.
Quote #3
Yet surely, and especially to another scientific man, there was nothing so horrible in vivisection as to account for this secrecy. (7.22)
The quote certainly points to the fact that this book was written in a different time. Then, vivisection was open for debate. For us, cutting into animals while they are still alive is where we draw the line and on that line build a fence reading "Do Not Enter."
Quote #4
Yet had I known such pain was in the next room, and had it been dumb, I believe—I have thought since—I could have stood it well enough. It is when suffering finds a voice and sets our nerves quivering that this pity comes troubling us. (8.26)
An age-old moral issue. Only once suffering becomes obvious for Prendick—it makes his nerves quiver—does it start raising moral flags for him. If suffering is silent it doesn't bother him and he can more or less continue on with his day. Thank goodness we're not at all like Prendick in this respect, right?
Quote #5
Could the vivisection of men be possible? (10.26)
First, let's get this off our chests: ew. Now onto the good stuff. The question may seem rhetorical. Obviously you can experiment on a person while he's still alive. It's sick, but if horror films have taught us anything, it's doable. However, here Prendick is really thinking in terms of morals and ethics. He just can't imagine anyone would actually do it. The idea is so utterly alien to him and his moral code.
Quote #6
"Not to go on all-Fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"
"Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"
"Not to eat Flesh or Fish; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"
"Not to claw Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"
"Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?" (12.12-16)
There you have it, folks: the moral code of the Beast Folk. Notice how it not only gives them a code of conduct, but also ascribes to them social place based on that code. Follow the code, and you're a man. Don't and you are a beast. Check out our "Society and Class" theme section for more.
Quote #7
"But," said I, "I still do not understand. Where is your justification for inflicting all this pain? The only thing that could excuse vivisection to me would be some application—"
"Precisely," said [Moreau]. "But you see I am differently constituted. We are on different platforms. You are a materialist." (14.18-19)
Materialist! Ah, snap…wait, that was an insult, right? Either way, Moreau brings up an interesting point. Morality for him and Prendick are not the same thing. Not even close. Prendick's morality looks at the individual cases and the outcomes, while Moreau's looks at the larger, historical picture. Which is right or wrong? We'll let you ponder that one while we enjoy an iced tea.
Quote #8
"To this day I have never troubled about the ethics of the matter. The study of Nature makes a man at last as remorseless as Nature." (14.29)
Here, Moreau argues nature is free of morality. But if nature is remorseless, then why does Moreau impose the Law on the Beast Folk's natural state? Hmmm, something about this guy just doesn't add up. What do you think it is?
Quote #9
"We can't massacre the lot,—can we? I suppose that's what your humanity would suggest?… But they'll change. They are sure to change." (19.6)
Montgomery discusses with Prendick a no-win moral situation for himself. He (Montgomery) cares for the Beast Folk, so he doesn't want to kill them in their current state. But they will change into their dangerous beast forms, meaning they'll pose a greater risk to him. Can you imagine? We have a hard time deciding on a breakfast cereal, let alone whether or not we should loose a beast on the world.
Quote #10
"But one has sinned," said I. "Him I will kill, whenever I may meet him." (21.17)
The one in question is Hyena-Swine, the only Beast Folk Prendick truly fears. Notice how Prendick manipulates the moral system to turn his enemy into an enemy of the moral code itself by deeming him a sinner. Prendick has learned to play the moral game to his advantage, and that's pretty tricky of him, if perhaps not exactly, um, moral.