George Orwell Shooting And Elephant Summary

Molly Mims

Professor Jordan

Philosophy 2100

5 November 2014

Stage 1: Choose a Topic & Summarize Your Chapter

Shooting and Elephant By George Orwell

In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell has to decide between killing an elephant who went on a rampage through the streets, or to let him continue roaming in a near by field since he is not threatening to harm anyone at the moment. George Orwell was a non-educated Burma police officer, and was an obvious target for many people in the town. He thought that imperialism, the expansion of a country’s power, was an evil concept. Orwell wanted to forgo his job as a police officer. Then one day he got a call about an escaped elephant that was wondering through the bazaar. Suddenly after hearing shrieks

nearby Orwell found a man crushed to death by the elephant. He gathered the German rifle and found the elephant in a near by field. The first shot paralyzed the elephant, and the third shot took him to the ground. Even after firing the smaller rifle it took thirty minutes for the elephant to die. The Burman people were gathering anything they could salvage off the elephants body all the way to his bones. The elephant’s owner, who was of Indian decent, was upset about the death of his animal. It was the right thing to do to take down a crazed elephant.
Word Count: 220

Animal Liberation By Peter Singer

Questions regarding the equality between animals and humans are on the rise because of people’s interest and concerns about this issue.

Peter Singer is aiming for the equality of animals and not just people. Logical reasoning is evident that both men and women have the capability to vote, whereas animals do not. If a human’s equality were based strictly off certain demands we would have to put a halt to requiring equality because there are too many factors that create differences between human beings. For example, communication skills are different among all types of people. Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham values each person the same despite their differences. He brings up a good point and says that in order for you to suffer and like doing a particular task you have to find your personal interest in it. Giving more attention to those with the same skin color as goes against the concept of equality. Not to mention that the main interaction we humans have with animals usually occurs at a meal. Humans do not intend to harm animals, but in order for our bodies to survive and flourish we have to rely on certain meat production and consumption methods. In Stanley Benn’s article Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests, he does not think that the characteristics of humans are anywhere near equal to an animal such as a dog. The general argument of this essay takes sides with the human population because we are also

humans.
Word Count: 245

The Case Against Animal Rights By Cari Cohen

Because animals cannot speak for themselves, there are no available rights for them. A right can be defined as a claim that someone or even a group may have against someone else. An animal, because they lack response methods, does not have the capability of free moral judgment. Moral rights do not apply to any animal because it is outside of their knowledge to be acquitted of a crime when they cannot stand a trial like a human being can. Cohen says because of the pain inflicted on research animals we should stop practicing this. Human beings have a different morality standard, which includes actual rights, than animals do. Animal research efforts are really the only way we have found a cure for certain diseases, saved more lives than ever before, and have even increased the chance of one’s life span. One can only wonder why anyone would want to put a stop on the sacrifices of animals for research purposes when they are the ones in fact that are still eating a (dead) animal during a meal.

Word Count: 185