Subjects:
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 is these two statements that developed Orwell’s belief that the slaying of the elephant would benefit the villagers, and would also allow him to fulfill his moral obligation to protect them. An uncontrolled elephant places an unknowing fate of anything within its path.
In addition to the legality of Orwell’s act, one must look at the elephant’s temperament to further understand why his actions were justified. It was Orwell’s responsibility to uphold these laws and to protect the innocent civilian population which had no way of legally protecting themselves against a horrendous beast. “It had already devoured somebody’s bamboo hut, killed a cow …. There were multiple incidents of destruction against defenseless villagers. In the following passages, Orwell explains that his actions were legal. There is no proof whether this ceasing of destruction was temporary or permanent, but the aggressive acts of an elephant in this state of mind indicate that prior attempts to control him had failed and the elephant should be destroyed to prevent further damage and potential loss of life. Even though the natural phenomenon of musth is something an elephant cannot control, the elephant needs to be controlled by its’ owner.
Essay's Topics
All research is for reference purposes only.