That’s Not Our Right
After reading George Orwell Shooting an Elephant, Orwell tells a story about shooting an elephant in a small town of Europe. Although the story is clearly about shooting an elephant, Orwell has an underlying meaning. I think in the story Orwell’s point is, who has the right to murder someone else because they have killed someone. He makes this clear in his statement, “And afterwards I was glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant.” In the quote Orwell means that since the coolie was murder that society allows for the elephant to be killed.
I was raised learning “eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth.” This saying holds a lot of truth but has limitations. However this is only true to the person it happens too. After Orwell shot the elephant he became the murderer but since society views that as legal, he knew he would not get punished.
I do not think people have the right to kill someone because they have committed a crime such as murder. It is not moral and is unjust. Orwell knew that killing the elephant was wrong but the law allow it. In my eyes I consider Orwell now a murderer.
14 comments:
I agree with Will because i believe two wrongs never make a right regardless of what the elephant had done and that he is and should be considered as a murderer!
I agree that he should have not killed the elephant but he really did not have any other choice.
The natives expected him to kill it as soon as they saw him with the rifle.
He did not want to lose face in front of the natives because he was an authority figure and he could not afford to lose face.
I agree with not killing the elephant but you just don't know what pressure can do to you or make you do.
Most people I know don't like to look like fools. The officer didn't want to look like one and I understand but it still doesn't give him the right to kill the elephant.
What I got out of the story was that the officer shot the elephant to please the people and was only lucky that man was killed so he wouldn’t have to get punished for giving in to pressure.
After reading your intake of the writing I’ve realized that George Orwell does make a point in killing the elephant shouldn’t be justified just because someone else was killed during the elephant’s run. I didn’t look at the story like that before, but you put a different perspective on Orwell’s message. Orwell does make that officer out to be a murderer.
I agree with Ailisa that Orwell makes the man look like a murderer. I think that he says this because he gives in to peer pressure.
I had never thought of the writing in this sense but I have to agree. Though sometimes one has to do something that they dont want to do because others may not be able. Orwell shows the effect of shooting a living creature and the burden that comes with it.
I agree because they is nothing that gives him the right to shoot the animal. At the time he shot the animal was not in a dangerous state. It was simply just minding its own business. He thought he had to shoot it because the people saw it as his duty.
I agree that Orwell shouldnt have killed the elephant. He knew it was wrong and was concidering not shooting it. I think that the pressure from the natives made him shoot the elephant more than his own malace, but he should have had more self control than to give in to pressure.
I agree with Brandon with two wrongs dont make a right but I also think that if you murder someone you to should get the same treatment giving the situation. I also agree that if the elephant was running loose and killing things something should have been done. I'm not saying it should have been shot but maybe released in the wild where it wouldnt cause any harm.
Ok, first off, I do agree with Brandon that two wrongs do not make a right.
However, the only reason it was wrong to shoot the elephant is that the elephant was minding its own business. He did not find out that the guy was killed by the elephant until afterwards. Had he known that beforehand, he would have been completely justified, provided the elephant was still a danger to the people.
I must disagree with you, Will, when you say that Orwell is a murderer. Shooting an elephant is not the same as killing a person. Animals are not equal to people.
I would not go to the extent of saying he is a murder. No he should not have killed the elephant just because he didn't want to. If Orwell is a murderer then so is deer hunters, or fishing. Killing is killing weather you eat the animal or just let it die.
I don't agree with Jamie. In order for us to survive something has to die. It's not murdering, it's surviving. Every other animal in the world does it and so do we.
Nathalie said...
I agree with Brandon and Will,because I was always taught that even though two negatives equals a positive in mathematical terms doesn't mean it makes a right in reality term. I was also taught to do unto others as you would want done to you.
Post a Comment