The Most Dangerous Game

University:
Washington State University
Course:
MATH 172 | Calculus II
Academic year:

2022
Views:

0

Pages:

2
Author:

Decker Haag

Zaroff claims in The Most Dangerous Game that hunting humans is merely the next level of sport from hunting animals. He explains that men have needed to prove their dominance, intelligence, and strength over others through the sport of hunting since the dawn of civilization. Thus, in today's society, where man has the opportunity of guns and other man-made inventions, the simple access to hunting animals does not give a man bragging rights; a man who kills something bestowed upon him as a lesser being does not measure up to a man's potentials. Still, to outsmart and kill something as equivalent to him is more of a challenge and thus, the end game. Also, it is only natural to upgrade to hunting humans since it is a more worthy kill. Zaroff arrives at the notion that he's merely doing what nature promotes. If he's a man of nature as he suggests then he's some sort of superman. The strong should devour the weak; if animals are so brutal and natural in their existence, why shouldn't humans be? Therefore, for Zaroff, to kill a human when he's hunting is not murder; it's a game, it's research, it's something to be done with his superiority. He believes that by killing humans, he does them a service they'll never get the human back; in his mind and in his reality, they're mere pawns, pieces on a board. The fact that he gives them a head start only adds to the "game" of it all. While Zaroff is correct that there's no difference between hunting humans and making it a game in the same regard, he's mistaken. For one, to hunt humans, people with lives destined to be killed as sport is unnecessary. It makes people less than human. There is a definitive difference between animals and humans; yes, humans are sometimes prey to a lower socioeconomic status, however, at the end of the day, humans have brains, feelings, rational thought it's this distinction that keeps them alive. He's mistaken about what should be done. Humans live in a society, in civilization, not in a world of savagery, which means right from the start, humanity has the upper hand, the moral and ethical distinctions, all of which exist for appropriate justification that makes humanity a game gone too far. Thus, when humanity becomes pawns to get the upper hand against someone else, it's a game gone too far because it's fatal.