A VINDICATED SLAYER
A VINDICATED SLAYER: A CLOSER LOOK AT GEORGE ORWELL'S "SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT"The impact of removing an animal from its natural habitat by destruction seems demoralizing to some people. Nevertheless there are times when this course of action is required due to aggressive behavior from the animal. In George Orwell's story "Shooting an Elephant", he was assigned as a police officer in a small Burmese village in 1950. He had been called upon to take action against a belligerent elephant, whose uncontrollable rage also led to an excruciating and painful death of a defenseless villager. The protagonist was justified in his position in destroying the elephant based upon these facts. In order to validate that Orwell's action were legal and justified one must first understand the responsibilities of a police officer, the uncontrolled state of the elephant, and the impact the elephant's death had on the villagers. Officers of the law are not above scrutiny in their job, but duty is above conscience.It is the responsibility of a law enforcement officer to uphold the law, regardless of how insignificant or inhumane an incident might appear. It is not the local citizens who decide what is right and wrong, but rather the laws that are in
Orwell's act of slaying this elephant is vindicated, based upon the fact that even though the elephant is an animal, it did kill a human being. It was apparent that the villagers had no right to bear arms because it was Orwell's responsibility to protect the citizens of the village since they ". "Bull elephants annually cycle between a state of heightened aggressiveness, called musth, and non-musth. "It had already devoured somebody's bamboo hut, killed a cow . Even though Orwell felt he did not want to destroy the elephant, his moral obligation to the villagers was to protect them. It was apparent that there was a severe lack of food in the village as explained in this excerpt. An uncontrolled elephant places an unknowing fate of anything within its path. Whether the elephant was properly cared for as they should when in this state, the mahout was not available to attempt further control. In the following passages, Orwell explains that his actions were legal.
Common topics in this essay:
Shooting Elephant,
SHOOTING ELEPHANT,
bull elephants,
George Orwell's,
orwell's responsibility,
moral obligation,
orwell 5,
orwell destroy elephant,
law orwell's responsibility,
slaying elephant,
officers law,
police officer,
destroy elephant,
law uphold,
orwell destroy,
|
Acceptance Essays
