Ethical Analysis in the Most Dangerous Game Essay
When people make ethical decisions, they expect them to be right or wrong. However, in reality, correct or incorrect ethical choices do not exist. It is only a matter of how people consider it and what consequences it may lead to. The key point for an individual is to realize the point where he or she remains in life. It makes it possible for people to make step-by-step decisions based on our personal issues of ethics and morality. This is actually the question that arises when reading the Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell, a story of the manhunt that can be both exciting and thrilling for the reader.
The first thing we have to think of when reading a story about the two main characters Rainford and Sarty is the ethical issues of hinting. The story carefully drives us to the culmination where the main characters are forced to make a choice and we are to decide if it is ethical or not. Humans claim themselves to be the most powerful creatures on earth. They are sure they have the right to hunt for animals with the license to kill. The question is do we really deserve that license or is it just a matter of our humans’ megalomania? Do we possess the right to kill someone weaker, not only animals but also human beings? Is it a game to chase and kill wild animals? How should we answer the question arising in the story: “Who cares about how a jaguar feels?”
Those are the questions we will try to answer in the Most Dangerous Game Essay. To get started, it is necessary to give a summary of the story to understand who is who. Rainford teams up with his partner Whitney to set up for a trip to Amazon where they will have a chance to hunt jaguars or tigers. They eventually reached one of the most dreadful and scary places they have ever been to – the “Ship-Trap Island”. While sailors tried to make their way to the island in darkness, they heard three gunshots. When Rainford hears the screams, he heads to the island to see what was happening. After getting to the shore, he found a house that looked like an old mansion.
This is where the author introduces General Zaroff, a man, who goes hunting mainly for excitement. He considers chasing humans one of the most fascinating sports, never giving a thought to what consequences it may have and how people feel about it. Zaroff bought the island to develop and promote his “sensational” game. The main participants were sailors from wrecked ships who managed to get to the land. Zaroff trained them and provided them with a knife and food enough to spend three days in isolation. During this period, Zaroff was trying to hunt those men down. To win the game, one should stay alive during those three days. Those who survive are let free. If any of the participants is found by the General, he dies.
He likes manhunt, as humans are more reasonable and cautious when making decisions to run for their lives. They are more exciting to hunt than animals. Besides, the process delivers more thrill. Rainford did not agree with that statement and told Zaroff that manhunting is brutal. This fact drove the General mad. Nevertheless, he has to spend a night together with Zaroff in a tower of the general’s residence. The next day the big game starts.
Rainford finds it possible to survive and return to the mansion without dogs able to find him. When the general meets the winner, he congratulates him. However, it is not over for Rainford. He wants to fight Zaroff and kill him to stop the manhunt once and for all. Eventually, the author shows him enjoying the comfort of the general’s bed, assuming that he managed to win the fight.
The story shows two hunters. The first one prefers chasing down wild animals while the second one enjoys hunting humans. On the one hand, the General seems to be the main antagonist, On the other hand, Rainford is also a hunter himself, He set up for a trip to kill tigers and jaguars. So, are they actually so different from the ethical point of view? From baseline ecology, we know that killing animals may have a destructive impact on nature as well as the ecosystem we live in. While humans consider themselves the most powerful creatures, they should be responsible for keeping life on Earth.
Killing for fun is not right no matter if you hunt animals or humans. It appears to be an anti-intellectual activity unless people do it to get food and necessary resources for their families. Modern people have everything they can only dream of. All we need is to establish harmonious coexistence with the surrounding wild world. It is the key not only to survival but also to a civilized society where everyone who cares about the planet will live on.