Consequences Of Animals In George Orwell's 'Shooting An Elephant'

In George Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell choice of shooting the elephant was made due to internal pressure. The British Officer is station at Lower Burma. He hates his duty and despises the British Empire; the Officer secretly likes the Burmese. The Burmese shouted at the Officer to shoot the elephant when they saw him holding the “magical rifle,” but his moral conscience made him not want to shoot the elephant. When the Officer notice thousandths of Burmese staring at him, he felt like he must “do what the natives expect of him,“ because if he doesn’t shoot the elephant “the crowd would laugh” at him.

George Orwell who wrote a narrative essay Shooting an Elephant” has a tense tone of literature towards his life. He is using a stressed tone due to peer pressure, and lack of confidence toward himself as he is an imperialist who came to protect uphold the laws. He's difficult attitude sets the scene for the story in his eyes. Throughout the story the concept of his decisions and action will be projected through the uses of diction; the write words to express his feelings.

Imagine being placed in a situation that holds the fate of a breathing elephant, the largest land animal in the world. Would you spare its life or begin the end of it in a blink of an eye? In Eric Arthur Blair’s essay Shooting An Elephant, George Orwell, arguably Blair himself, was once confronted with this very question. As an English police officer in Burma during the Age of Imperialism, Orwell was called upon to investigate an aggressive elephant that was ravaging a local bazaar and later discovered, even killed a man. When he finally located the mammal, “at that distance, peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow” (Orwell 2). Orwell’s immediate thoughts were that he ought not to shoot the creature “I had no intention of shooting the elephant--I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary” (2). However, Orwell’s initial thoughts would not be put into action. Orwell would later go on to kill the elephant with three shots aimed at the brain as over two thousand native people

THESIS: Although Orwell is justified, legally shooting the elephant is wrong because, the elephants “must” period was over, the way the animal was shot caused the animal to suffer, and Orwell violated his own beliefs because of peer pressure.

To put this on equal terms, think one day you and your family are taking a leisurely stroll down the park. While walking down the spark another person randomly tries to kill you. But, no one but your mom is wounded with a poisoned wound without an antidote. Frighten you would not be able to know or think straight with the sight of someone dear to you dying right in front of your eyes. Now if you would please take that picture and put it in terms of an animal being hunted by another species far more advanced, without a way to protect themselves. Is it really morally right to kill another living thing for sport? Especially when the animal involved is on the endangered species list, to be fair, it is on the endangered species list for a reason because it is on the verge of becoming extinct. So let me ask you again why should anybody think it's more to hunt and kill animals that are endangered or simply in our backyards. it is morally wrong to continue trophy hunting as a Leisure activity when endangered animals are

Philosopher Elizabeth Harman argues that painlessly killing an animal is impermissible if we have strong moral reasons against causing them pain (Harman 2011). She bases her argument on the premise that animals have moral status, and that harming something with moral status is impermissible. Harman claims that an action which painlessly kills an animal harms the animal, therefore this practice is impermissible unless justified by other considerations.

Throughout "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell, he addresses his  internal battle with the issues of morality and immorality. He writes of several situations that show his immoral doings. When George Orwell signed up for a five-year position as a British officer in Burma he was unaware of the moral struggle that he was going to face. Likewise, he has an internal clash between his moral conscious and his immoral actions. Therefore, Orwell becomes a puppet to the will of the Burmese by abandoning his thoughts of moral righteousness. This conflicts with the moral issue of relying upon other's morals, rather than one's own conscience.

“A story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes,” Orwell says this in his essay “Shooting an Elephant” that is in The Norton Mix textbook (273-74). Essays are hard, especially when you are assigned to work with people you believe may have not have anything in common with you. Many people find it difficult to write about themselves, which makes this assignment even more grueling. Four people, talking and writing, depending on each other for a grade, of course it will be grueling. No one wants to depend on others to do their part, but in this group things came together quite well in the end. Each of us wrote our own body paragraph, which we believe will be clear with the

In the 1800s, shortly before Congress passed the second Fugitive Slave Act, an abolitionist named Henry David Thoreau published “Civil Disobedience.” Being an opponent of the Polk administration, and more specifically the Mexican War, Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” as a way to persuade his fellow citizens to follow their morals and values rather than falling victim to the Federal government’s ideologies and beliefs. Furthermore, “Civil Disobedience” challenged its readers to “defy the law and the Constitution” of the United States (407). About eighty years later in 1936, George Orwell wrote “Shooting an Elephant” (307). In the essay, Orwell described a memorable experience of his time as an officer in imperialist Burma.

Unanticipated choices one is forced to make can have long-lasting effects.{2} In "Shooting an Elephant," by George Orwell, the author recounts an event from his life when he was about twenty years old during which he had to choose the lesser of two evils. Many years later, the episode seems to still haunt him. The story takes place at some time during the five unhappy years Orwell spends as a British police officer in Burma. He detests his situation in life, and when he is faced with a moral dilemma, a valuable work animal has to die to save his pride.{3}

Gisselle Armijos Mrs.Rosenwasser AP English Language and Composition 1/16/15 Orwell Essay Response In George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant”, the subject is British imperialism. The birth of Orwell’s essay was during the early 1900s, when the British ruled Burma (Myanmar present day).

Burma has not experienced peace in two hundred and fifty years and has experienced a civil war since World War II (DVB.no). In George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” (SAE) he describes firsthand the effects of imperialism on the Burmese people and his disapproval of their actions. He established his disapproval of the Burmese with literary devices and his direct first-person narration.

The purpose of George Orwell’s gun was for protection. It was never intended for anything else, like to harm animals. When Orwell came across the elephant, he didn’t think anything of it, he didn’t even think to shoot it because it seemed peaceful. When he saw the thousands of people looking at him, he got nervous and felt pressured to shoot it. He felt like he was expected to shoot it. He knew that the elephant would provide food and other things for the natives, but still didn’t see why he should shoot it. If I was in Orwell’s place I wouldn’t have shot the elephant. Even if it made me look like a complete fool in front of the thousands of people, I would have felt better knowing I didn’t cause pain to such a beautiful animal. I wouldn’t even have the guts to point the gun at the elephant, because I just love animals that much.

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss,

Burma, known as Myanmar, is a dominating ethnic group that lacks legitimacy and poor human rights. The country was taken over by the British colonial rule around the nineteenth century and thus created a state of civil war between the Burmese people and the British government. This led to oppression and torment to the Burmese people and showed their attitude as hate, pain, and in some situations happiness.