More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of ethics within the decision-making process
Decision on ethical matters
Decision on ethical matters
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Justifying a decision Making a decision requires an input of whatever information you have and analyzing it to determine the choice that will be made. George Orwell, had to face a decision whether or not to kill an elephant. The elephant was a tame one that had broken its chain the night before and escaped. The elephant went a “must” and ended up killing an Indian when it caught him with his trunk and ground him into the earth. Ultimately, the elephant was found and shot by Orwell in a paddy field while it was eating brush. To determine if he is justified in killing the elephant, take a look at what led him to his decision. Things to consider while determining if he is justified are: the environment in which he is in, the role in which he must fulfill as an officer, and his morals. He was faced with a difficult decision and in the end he justified his choice. George Orwell was a sub-divisional police officer in Lower Burma under the control of the British Empire. He did not like his job. He was bullied and hated by large numbers of people. As a police officer he states; “I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so” (Orwell 237). The feelings he had toward his job were …show more content…
He was experiencing what it was like to represent someone he did not want to be. He wanted the Burmese people to like him but he still needed to represent the British as a police officer. With his job duties as an officer, he had to react to the elephant getting loose. He had to be a leader and figure out how to handle the situation that was unfolding. Once the elephant was found it was no longer a threat, however, he was still expected to do something because the elephant had killed a man. He had to go against his moral decision not to kill the elephant just to keep from looking like a fool to the people. He was able to justify his decision in shooting the elephant because a man was
Throughout the story, Orwell described how he was heavily pressured by the Burmese into shooting an elephant, stating that he became "... an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind" (Capote 583). Through Orwell's diction it became known that Orwell was hated by the majority of his residing village since he upheld the position of a sub divisional police officer for the British Raj in colonial Burma. Orwell was driven to killing the animal out of desperation of the public dropping all forms of hatred towards him. Although killing the elephant was against his will, Orwell went through with the deed earning a new profound identity known as the elephant
Initially, in the text Elephant, by Orwell, the speaker, who is actually a younger Orwell back when he was a policeman for England stationed in Burma, is faced with the decision to shoot an elephant that is running around like crazy, destroying everything because it is in must, or in heat. Although the elephant is destroying things, it is also a very important animal to the people of Burma, because they use it for farming, and other things. The thing that really messes Orwell up is the fact that there is peer pressure mixed into his feelings. The other police officers believe that killing the elephant is the ri...
In 1922, Orwell began working as the assistant superintendent of police in Myaungmya, Burma, and this is where his hatred toward imperialism and its tyrannical rule over the underdogs in society developed. He felt guilty torturing and flogging unwilling subjects. The community had taken too much power over the individual, and the imperialist society commanded Orwell to enforce this injustice: “I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny…with another part I thought the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts. Feelings like these are normal by-products of imperialism” (qtd. in Lewis 41). Obviously, imperialism had affected Orwell to the point where he developed animosity towards the Burmese. As a policeman doing “the dirty work of the Empire” (qtd. in Lewis 41), Orwell acquired a hatred for imperialism, a belief that is focused on dominion over other individuals.
Orwell starts off his story by sharing that with us. “I was hated by large number of people, the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.” (181) Its only when there’s a time in need do they express appreciating. Hating his job because of certain beliefs. “…I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing…” So why did he shoot the elephant? He knew it was wrong, in fact he had a plan on what to do in order not to kill it. “The crowed would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East was one long struggle not to be laugh at” He deffinaly felt the pressure of the crowd. “It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute” In order for him to seem as he done the right thing even though in his heart he knew was wrong, he did it, he shot the elephant. He didn’t even shoot to kill, the poor guy was at a suffering state. He justified his action with the elephant’s wrong doing, killing a man. Orwell had lack of integrity to himself, but for the town’s people, he did what was in his jobs nature. And policemen need integrity to serve the law, even if its ageist your own
Although shooting the, now seemingly calm, “mad elephant” is morally wrong to George Orwell, in his narration of Shooting an Elephant, he has to do so as he is a representative, or more so a pawn, of the British authority in the occupied country of Burma. Being such, he wages a war with his inner self to seek which decision needs to be carried out. With two outcomes in mind, one being that he will be seen as a fool if he does not shoot the elephant and the other being an authority of the law by truly showing it and protecting the villagers, he has an epiphany. With such an authority, the law and someone’s moral conscience diverge. He then realizes what must be done and shoots the elephant to protect the imperialistic authority. As the excitement
The quest for power is one which has been etched into the minds of men throughout history. However, it can be said that true power is not a result of one’s actions but comes from the following one’s own beliefs without being influenced by others. This principle sets up the story for Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. The protagonist, Orwell himself, is a sub divisional police officer in Burma, a British colony. Orwell must try to find and use his inner power when he is faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant which has ravaged the Burman’s homes. The state of power established through the imperialistic backdrop show that Orwell, as a colonist, should be in control. As well, the perspective and ideas given by Orwell show his true character and lessen the overall power set up for him. Lastly, the symbols shown are representations of traditional forms of power, but take on different implications in the story. In Shooting an Elephant, George Orwell uses setting, characterization and symbols to show that true power comes from following the dictates of one’s conscience.
Some two thousand Burmese were trailing right behind Police Officer Orwell, expecting to get vengeance for the man that the elephant killed. Orwell is first pressured just by their mere presence. Only a few moments pass before Orwell comes to terms with what he thinks is the best alternative as he stated, “And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly.” (327) In addition, he felt subjected to shoot the animal; the Burmese were finally supporting him, and he couldn 't give that up even if that meant doing something against his better
From birth people are told cautionary tales. Stories like Little Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks and the Three Bears have been passed down and told countless times to convey to individuals various messages. Many people have noticed a warning in George Orwell’s 1984 about the future of human freedom in a world where political organizations and technology can manufacture power. Orwell wrote the book 1984 as a cautionary tale for future generations to warn them about the effects of a totalitarian society and the loss of independent thought.
A police officer in the British Raj, the supposedly 'unbreakable'; ruling force, was afraid. With his gun aimed at a elephant's head, he was faced with the decision to pull the trigger. That officer was George Orwell, and he writes about his experience in his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant';. To save face, he shrugged it off as his desire to 'avoid looking the fool'; (George Orwell, 283). In truth, the atmosphere of fear and pressure overwhelmed him. His inner struggle over the guilt of being involved in the subjugation of a people added to this strain, and he made a decision he would later regret enough to write this story.
Many young Englishmen did not work at their universities, but acquired a broad outlook and self confidence in complex problem solving. After his time at Eton, he was advised by a tutor to leave the life he claimed to be so dreadful, and go abroad to try to find employment. Orwell took that advice and the next year in 1922, he took a job working for the Indian Imperial Police in Burma, where he worked until 1927. Orwell was not very fond of the job, but knew the smart thing to do was to stay there, rather than leaving to seek employment somewhere else. He later wrote about this life experience in Burmese Days, published in New York in 1934, in which he writes about the frustration and humiliation of the job derived from the official relationship between the English and Burmese (British Writers, V7, 276-280).
In George Orwell’s novel 1984, there are many powerful compelling themes such as the idea of having vast amounts of power, similar to an oligarchy, the concept of mind control, and finally the theory of War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. These three topics are all genuinely relevant to the Mongolian empire, and how Genghis Khan became one of the most influential and robust leaders of all time with similar actions of the party in the novel of 1984, but their power would be less prevailing if they did not have the support from a band of illiterate people.
In the novel 1984, published in 1949 by George Orwell, he uses manipulation through language as a weapon of psychological control and abuse of power. “Psychological manipulation the Party uses on the citizens is one of the first themes Orwell exposes in this dystopian society” (Bartleby). The control of language is centralized in the Party; therefore, the Party alters the structure of language to make it impossible for an individual to be disobedient or capable of rebellious thoughts because there are no words which to think them. This idea reveals itself to the people of Oceania as the language of Newspeak, which the Party originated to substitute English. The Party is continuously filtering and perfecting Newspeak
The character, himself, is part of the British rule and is supposed to have all of the power. The Burmese, though, dangle the power in front of him. He is weak and unsure of himself, stating that he “wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (60). The character is not able to stand up for what he believes in -- that is, not shooting the elephant. There is a back and forth struggle in his mind about whether or not the elephant needs to be killed. Orwell’s character is fully aware that it is wrong and immoral to shoot an innocent creature, but eventually secedes to the demands of the Burmese, attempting to prove his cooperation and loyalty to those watching. In a way, the Burmese represent the pressures of society. Because of this, the audience can sympathize with the main character. There are always times when we, the readers, are unsure of ourselves, but we eventually make a decision. Whether we make the decision for ourselves or are assisted by others, in the end, we must take responsibility for our own actions. In a broader sense, Orwell’s character represents the internal conflict that everyone faces: should we conform to society or should we be our own
According to Orwell his freedom was destroyed when he took on the role of the tyrant. His job was that of a sub-divisional police officer in Lower Burma. A crisis arose in which he was faced with a hard decision to make. An elephant had gone on a rampage in the village and had destroyed countless huts and killed a man. When Orwell came upon the elephant it was clear to him that it had calmed down and that the elephant would cause no more harm to anyone. Orwell was faced with a decision: he could either shoot the beast or wait until his master came to get him. However, this decision was made much more complicated. Orwell was surrounded by two thousand Burmans who, as Orwell said, “were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a magic trick.” Although the Burmans were all underneath him and subject to him, he was very concerned about what they thought he should do. He was so concerned in fact he concluded that he had to do as they wished of him.
Orwell is an unhappy young policeman who lives in mental isolation. He hates British imperialism, he hates Burmese natives, and he hates his job. He is completely alone with his thoughts since he cannot share his idea that "imperialism was an evil thing" with his countrymen. Orwell sees the British rule as "an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down. . . upon the will of prostate peoples" because he observes firsthand the cruel imprisonments and whippings that the British use to enforce their control. Nor can he talk to the Burmese because of the "utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East." This "utter silence" results from the reasoning behind imperialism that says, "Our cultures are different. My culture has more power than your culture. Therefore, my culture is superior in every way, and it will rule yours." If one is a member of a superior culture, one must not make jokes, share confidences, or indicate in any way that a member of the inferior culture is one's equal. A wall, invisible but impenetrable, stands between the British and the Burmese. His hatred for...