How Did George's Decision To Kill Lennie Ethical

566 Words2 Pages

George and Lennie were as close as brothers, wishing to purchase a ranch and live independently. However, Lennie carried a mental disability, not knowing how to control his own strength, which caused him to do “bad things”. These bad things result in both men constantly on the run from authority. Lennie eventually makes a fatal mistake, strangling the boss’s wife, Curley. In the end, George must decide between taking Lennie’s life or letting him live. He peacefully shoots Lennie in the back of the head. George’s decision to kill Lennie was moral because it put Lennie out of misery and harm’s way. Unfortunately, Lennie had a disability, and back in their time, disabled people were treated horribly. For instance, “...over 60000 disabled people were sterilized without their consent.” (1927). Additionally, “Doctors require to register anyone known to have any “genetic illness” such as “feeblemindedness” (1993). Lennie would’ve had horrible things happen to him without consent. He would’ve been killed, hated, and labeled as dirt, smudging the image of a perfect race. Everyone would’ve considered him a “disease” and that would’ve slowed the progression for disabled rights. If George hadn’t shot Lennie, Lennie would’ve faced discrimination, even up to being sterilized without consent. George’s decision saved Lennie from …show more content…

If Lennie survived, society would have discriminated against him, even tortured him. Yes, George also committed murder, but he acted out of self-defense and stopped other situations like this from happening. If Curley got ahold of him, he would’ve tortured Lennie. Ultimately, George cared for Lennie, and he would do anything to keep him safe and happy. They were best friends. George didn’t kill him ruthlessly like Curly would have. He shot Lennie mercifully. George simply wanted the best for him. With that in mind, George shot Lennie to help

Open Document