Killing Justified

Many people have different opinions regarding Sanger Rainsford's actions. And that depends on how the reader apprehends the characters.

Before the last fight started, Rainsford implied that the fight wasn't over and the general understood what he meant by "I am still a beast at bay" and agreed to have one last battle or challenge.

The general made one of his deepest bows. "I see" he said. "splendid! One of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. The other will sleep in this very excellent bed. On guard, Rainsford."

So it is obvious that both men knew what they were getting into, and that it was a fair play. Rainsford was more than juistified in killing the general, not only did Zaroff selfishly kill many people just to pleasure himself "That is why I use them. It gives me pleasure.", but he for sure was going to kill many other people after Rainsford leaves. Also, by the generals killings and "hunting" we can see that there is no law to punish those who kill, it is a "game" afterall, so Rainsford didn't commit a crime by killing the general, and in a way, he did the world a favor by taking him down. Furthermore, as a hunter, Rainsford had pride and he wanted to show that by going back to the mansion and confronting General Zaroff before exterminating him, because he could have just attacked him and ended his life right away, but that wouldnt give him the satisfaction of killing the general, and that gives him respect.

In conclusion, in any other scenario, it would have been a terrible idea to take another person's life, but in this particular case, it is more than justified.

Works cited

Connel, Richard, The Most Dangerous Game. CreateSpace (May 16, 2011)

...