There are some moments when killing can be justified, though it rarely is. In the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell the two main characters have the same mentality but different point of views on killing. Sanger Rainsford is an intelligent, professional “Big Game Hunter” that hunts a large variety of animals. General Zaroff is a sociopathic “Dangerous Game Hunter” that finds great interest in hunting human beings. In this story, Sanger Rainsford hunted animals which was proven rationalized where as General Zaroff hunted humans which was proven unjustified.
A numerous amount of people kill for many reasons. Some kill to protect out country, some kill for fun. Others may kill to protect themselves or their family. Sanger Rainsford kills for the sport and entertainment such as General Zaroff. However, the view on General Zaroff’s killing is different than Rainsford’s because he is killing humans. For example, in the story General Zaroff states “I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships—lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels—a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them.” He refers to them as scum because of their race and social class level which is not justified. Many of these people that are being murdered are still humans, with families and feelings.
The truly justified character of this story is Sanger Rainsford. Sanger Rainsford is the type of person that benefits a society or environment. Rainsford hunts most animals and this helps maintain the number of species in one location. A previously read article stated, “Without the hunter, many breeds of animals would become overpopulated and eventually die off from starvation due to the excessive numbers and lower food percentage per herd.” The difference between Sanger Rainsford and General Zaroff is the type of hunting they each practice. Sanger Rainsford is more justified than General Zaroff because Rainsford hunts animals which help the number of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document