The significance of General Zaroff eating it when he and Rainsford first meet is that it is symbolic of his blood-thirstiness. This means that he kills for sport, and now that hunting animals is no longer a big enough challenge for him, and now he hunts men. At this point, we come to realize that Rainsford has no idea at this point in the story that Zaroff has a taste for blood, and that he is supposed to be the next victim. 5.) “There is no greater bore than
Macomber is not what Margot necessarily wants, but has enough money to have her. “Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce and Macomber had too much money for Margot to ever leave him (pg22).” Aristotle describes bravery as acting because they want to be there not as though they feel they need to in order to escape shame. Macomber goes into killing the buffalo as though he is trying to escape that shame that he has brought to him and his wife. In summation, Macomber may have found a sense of bravery within himself, but he is not a courageous person, due to his actions when confronting both the lion and the buffalo. Macomber acts in Emotion, Skill and fear of a loss of character, which Aristotle does not believe those characteristics determine a courageous
Richard Connell once quoted, “There is no greater bore than perfection.” This exemplified perfection is something many people lust for, but can’t understand. Imperfections are what make people different from one another but, without imperfections, humans would be boring. Similarly, in Connell’s, “The Most Dangerous Game,” the antagonist, Zaroff, mentions being perfect is boring. As if he is referring to himself, he’s saying he’s a perfect hunter, but grows bored hunting animals, so he’s stepping up the game and starting to hunt humans instead. Sometimes if you succeed at everything it starts becoming boring after awhile; sometimes you just need to change the game and get out of your customary range of familiarity a bit to explore your possibilities.
This sounds like it would be a very sad place to live and if I were not personally living in it I would feel awful for the people that were. Imagine thinking about another society that all had handicaps and you being able to keep that thought in your head and not them. This is why I would not like to live in a utopia like this. In “The Most Dangerous Game” General Zaroff gets bored with hunting animals and decides that he can hunt humans that get trapped on his island. When a world renowned hunter gets caught on his island he decides to treat him like a friend instead of prey.
The first thing which I believe makes a hero and at the same time destroys potential heroes is the simple fact that heroes consistently choose to be good, and through their goodness they inspire others to become better. But here's the problem which limits most people, choice. We have the ability to choose if we want to be good or evil, but in reality, the majority of us choose neither, we choose to be mediocre, not evil, but not good. As well, because being moral requires effort it’s much easier
If I find him, the general smiled, he loses” (Connell 5). In this section of the story, Zaroff is explaining the rules of the game to Rainsford. When Zaroff says “If I find him…..he loses,” you can highly infer by this that when he says “loses” he means they die, so he’s practically saying that is Rainsford loses, he dies. Typically, when one knows they are going to die, they do what they can to save themselves, which is what Rainsford did. Since Zaroff is hunting humans, one of them is most likely to die.
He shows that he is crazy when he is talking to Rainsford about how hunting humans is perfectly fine. “‘Oh,’’ said the general, “it supplies me with the most exciting hunting in the world’’ (Connell 72). Zaroff shows that he is crazy during this scene because he is literally trying to explain why there is nothing wrong with killing humans. Lastly, Zaroff is also overconfident in the story. He is overconfident when he gives Rainsford more time cause he doesn’t think he stands a chance, also when he doesn't even think about the traps even though he has seen them before.
In Chapter 17 of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, his claim is that it is better to be feared than loved. I strongly agree with Machiavelli’s claim because people are generally bad and will have the sense to take over your thrown if they are not feared by you. Additionally, if people are feared by you than they will not have the courage to fight back. In Chapter 17 Machiavelli writes, “…This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect.” This quote refers back to Machiavelli’s claim that in order to be successful you must endure cruelty in your city and
Michel de Montaigne focus on the importance of human nature and society. “On the Cannibals” he talks about how humans, in general, have moral and turbulent characteristics. He compares the tribes and Europeans to have unequal treatments for each other. Montaigne notes that the tribes have a better culture than the Western Europe and that he disapproves cannibalism and killing of prisoners of war. He then claims that because Europeans practice cruelty and murder by wanting to experience a superior culture rather than the tribes.
Thomas Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory, however, yields a different conclusion. A Thomist would assert that Dudley and Stephen’s act of killing is morally wrong because it violates one of the four basic values: human life. By killing the boy, they are effectively taking his life. Conclusively, Dudley and Stephen’s action not only brings about the good effect of saving three men’s lives but it also brings about an evil effect – a young boy dying without his assent. This evil effect cannot be justified by the Doctrine of Double Effect because killing the boy was intentional and a direct means to the good effect.