Analysis Of Shooting An Elephant And Mccarthy

At some point in your life, you will be put into a difficult situation. A situation where you will be found stuck in the middle; contemplating on what’s “right” or “wrong”. You will begin questioning yourself as an individual. It is your choice to be wise and make a decision you won’t later regret. Once a decision has been made, there’s no going back. There is much controversy on the topic of animal abuse. Many individuals question if it’s morally right or wrong to kill an animal or even use them for scientific testing. Some argue that animals have equal rights and protection as humans do. For this reason, people find that being in this position where you have to end a life is very difficult. Both essays, Shooting An Elephant by George Orwell

Both Orwell and McCarthy experienced a situation, where they were tested in making the “right” choice. Even though both individuals lived in different parts of the world, they both carried similar responsibilities. Orwell worked as a police officer in Burma, while McCarthy was a student in medical school. These jobs involved taking care of people and possibly risking their life. In the beginning of Shooting An Elephant, Orwell expressed his anxious feeling with being “an obvious target” to the people of Burma (Kirszner, page 458). Similarly, McCarthy indicated feeling “a little scared” with her study in medical school (Kirszner, page 479). Both individuals had situations where they felt confused. In Shooting An Elephant, the Burmese people had called Orwell saying that there was a problem. The problem was an elephant; it had destroyed a bamboo hut, killed a cow, raided some fruit-stalls and devoured the stock (Kirszner, page 459). But, when Orwell first arrived the elephant “was tearing up bunches of grass… and stuffing them into his mouth” (Kirszner, page 460). Orwell didn’t know what to do, but the people expected him to kill the elephant. In the same way, McCarthy didn’t know what to do when she had a choice to attend a lab. In this lab, McCarthy would be putting a dog to sleep and cutting it open. Both McCarthy and Orwell had advantages that came with taking an animal’s life. For

McCarthy had more of a choice, than Orwell did. The reason for this is because Orwell had more peer pressure put on him. In Shooting An Elephant, Orwell was surrounded by a bunch of people. All Orwell could see was a crowd of two thousand yellow faces following him (Kirszner, page 460). In contrast, McCarthy didn’t have any pressure in making her choice. The dog lab wasn’t required and wouldn’t affect her grade (Kirszner, page 481). In addition, Orwell had evidence of the elephant being dangerous. Orwell described seeing the elephant’s victim ‘”lying on his belly with arms crucified and head sharply twisted to one side” (Kirszner, page 459). Meanwhile, McCarthy’s victim was a happy puppy that wiggled his tail (Kirszner, page 483). At the end, both individuals felt differently about doing what they did. Orwell indicated being glad with killing the elephant. To Orwell the elephant’s murder had been justified and legally right (Kirszner, page 463). In the other hand, McCarthy felt guilty and disappointed in herself. The dog lab hadn’t been that important for McCarthy to proceed with. McCarthy had found herself worrying too much and losing herself.

In conclusion, deciding the difference between right and wrong can be difficult. Both individuals experienced the difficulty of making the right choice. Their situations were very different, but similar at the same time. In the end, their