George Orwell writes of his experience in British-ruled India in the early Twentieth Century. At the time, he was a young, inexperienced soldier stationed there to help protect the Queen’s interests. While he was there, he had to do something that had made some ethical conflicts within him. Judging by the way he wrote…it still does. Orwell had to kill an elephant that had run rampant in lust throughout a village. In it’s wake it destroyed a truck, a hut, and a villager. The villagers were obviously upset about the ordeal and he was called upon to restore the order before anything, or anyone, was hurt. Throughout the course of the adventure, he decided that it was best to kill the animal. His reasons for doing so, however, were not as clear-cut. He said his ultimate decision was to not look bad in front of the villagers; that gave him a degree of shame. Orwell was obviously in conflict within himself about his rationale, otherwise there would be none. What is to be seen is how he was justified in shooting the elephant, regardless of what ethical or moral agonies he had suffered. Orwell needed to show solidarity among the people as a man of authority. If he had not, the presence of the troops there would deteriorate to the point of total anarchy. The creature had also trampled a hut, killed a man, a cow, destroyed a fruit stand and ate the contents, and destroyed a government garbage van. These are very valid reasons to kill it, and ensure that it will never occur again with the animal in question, as well as maintain order within the village.
The first, and best way to justify it is to look at the man killed in the elephant’s sexual lust. In most countries when a man kills another, he or she is condemned to death or life imprisonment. Why should an animal face any different punishment? That man’s family will never see him again, and the contributions he made to his family and community will be difficult to replace. The man killed had dreams and a life to live; it was taken away from him most tragically. His manner of death was not wholesome either. When the elephant crushed him underfoot, it had torn the skin off of his back and buried him into the soft mud, ” The friction of the beast’s foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit. ” The villager probably just accidentally crossed the animal’s path, but a male creature in lust is not a calm one. Try running into a male cat or dog in heat; it isn’t pretty. Orwell really didn’t have much of a choice after this. The elephant would more than likely kill again, since it now knows that it can kill a human easily. What if it had been a child? No, Orwell obviously made the correct choice here, even if the other ones were not as justified. Those poor villagers have absolutely no defense against this, and depend upon the British government to help them when it occurs, “The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it.” What else could be done? Allow the elephant to destroy the entire sector?
Orwell had another reason to destroy the animal, and it was for the destruction of property. ” It had already destroyed somebody’s bamboo hut, killed a cow, and raided the fruit stalls and devoured the stock… ” It takes time and materials to rebuild things, and the damage caused in the elephant’s wake most certainly will take time to recover from. The time and materials spent to do so could have gone to other things in the community. When it destroyed and devoured the fruit stands’ contents, it deprived a livelihood from those vendors who were trying to earn a living there. When it destroyed the hut, a family is now left out in the cold to seek other shelter until it can be rebuilt. Aside from the civilian damage done, it wrecked a government trash vehicle, and decided to play with it, “…also, it had met the municipal rubbish van and, when the driver jumped out and took to his heels, had turned the van over and inflicted violence upon it.” A smart move on the driver’s part, but the damage was still done. Orwell argued over the intrinsic value of the elephant, as well as the value of the villager (hundreds of pounds in difference), but the van cost a bit more than both the villager and animal combined. He was justified in killing the animal in sheer property damage alone.
The final justification for Orwell’s decision is to keep a measure of order and respect within the community. The British presence there has to be kept where respect and discipline are always maintained. If not, the anarchy that would eventually ensue would make laws and codes harder to enforce. ” The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. ” With such vast odds against the troops there, if he showed the slightest weakness, the villagers would pounce upon him; everything would descend into chaos. At that precise moment, he realized that the British (Anglo-Saxon) rule there was utterly void and useless, “And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man’s dominion in the east. ” What choice did he have then? No more than when the damage done by the elephant was done. In order to preserve the common good, he had to do something he did not want to.
Orwell was justified legally and morally by the standards of the British government to do what he did. Killing the elephant not only helped restore and maintain the order there, it provided much needed meat to a starving population. There can be no wrong in that at all. He may have felt like he did the wrong thing in his own moral and ethical code, but he did what he must. What Orwell had to do, no matter how he felt personally. Even if he felt that he had to look good in front of people he considered inferior to himself. Preserve the peace, and make sure that order is prevailed. Not only is it his job as an officer, it is his duty as a human being. One could not ask for anything more.
