Deciphering Evil in "The Most Dangerous Game"

In Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous game," the antagonist, General Zaroff, views hunting as fairly neutral moral ground. And no, I am not talking about deer. I'm talking about humans. He wants to play a one-on-one hunting game against our protagonist, Rainsford. While this line of thought seems extreme, evident by the fact that it makes him the story's villain, his primitive belief makes sense from a certain perspective.

Take this quote for example.

"Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure. I am strong. Why should I not use my gift?. If I wish to hunt, why should I not? I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships-lascars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels-a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them."

Okay, enough shock value. No, I do not align myself with Zaroff's belief that killing is a morally neutral activity, but that is purely because after thousands of years of evolving into Homo Sapiens, we should know better than to kill. However, the act of murder in itself is only evil to human beings. Does that make every other animal in the animal kingdom evil? Does that make them stupid? Or, does that just make us sensitive?

Morality in general is contrived from human beings' intellect. Imagine if we never evolved to be what we are today. Imagine if the human race never existed and we evolved to be something completely different, absent of empathy and reason, more similar to that of a monkey. Then, morality would not exist, at least not to any of us—in this hypothetical of course. While morality may be inherent, if we did not have the ability to understand it, we would never "discover" it. I guarantee you that a lion does not feel guilty for murder just as any other animal wouldn't either. Their intellect has limits and keeps them fully present, focused on survival, unaware of where they stand in the grand scope of the universe.

From a secular standpoint, the world is just one neutral, chaotic series of events. Its a blessing and a curse for us, as humans, to feel emotional pain on a whole other level. We are typically against murder because we are conscious of own mortality. We know that there is pain in death, whether its purely the physical pain of death, or the emotional pain that the deaths of our loved ones cause. Not to sound too nihilistic, but why do we even care when our loved ones die? We are selfish and they help us survive, whether its the humorous pick-me-up of a friend or the actual nurturing qualities of a parent. It all goes back to how they make us feel in our time on earth.

Now, this blog post may be more philosophical than literary, but it just shows that Zaroff looks at the world for purely what it is, not what what it ought to be. In his line of thinking, there is no ought to be. There is only the animal kingdom acting, ourselves no different than that of a squirrel—a tiger—a bird—a fish. He sees himself as a part of the food chain, because the food chain does exist. The world is brutal. It doesn't care. If someone gets eaten by an alligator, that alligator doesn't go to prison. It's obvious, but we think of ourselves as humans as completely separate than that of anything else, but in reality we are just as a part of the earth as any other creature—no better—no worse.

The problem with Zaroff is that he has the capability to see a wider perspective and know the consequences of murder to the person being killed and their loved ones.

The one thing that truly does stand out from humans and other animals is empathy. And just like all horror villains, the lack of empathy is the most horrifying trait of all.