Compare Zaroff’s and Rainsford’s point of view on the hunt. How does this tension contribute to the moral stakes of the story?

Answer and Explanation:

Zaroff and Rainsford are characters in Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game". The whole story revolves around what is moral and what is not, as well as the characters' ability to empathize with others.

It is interesting to notice that Rainsford and Zaroff are more similar than they are different. They are both skilled hunters who also happen to be quite arrogant about their profession. Both fail to empathize with their prey. However, this is where the difference begins and ends. Rainsford hunts wild animals. He does not think of a jaguar's feelings when he fires his gun to kill it.

Zaroff, on the other hand, hunts men. He knows very well he is hunting rational beings like himself. But he does not care. He sees the men he hunts as inferior to him, just like Rainsford sees the animals as mere huntees. Yet, Rainsford is incapable of condoning with Zaroff's behavior and perception. To Rainsford, what Zaroff does is pure muder.

This tension and the conflict this difference generates are what advances the plot. Both hunters have similar views, only one of them has taken it to the next level. Is only Zaroff wrong? Are both of them murderers? Is Rainsford a better men simply because he has a different sense of moral when it comes to other human beings, but no moral when it comes to animals? Thus, the moral stakes of the story make us wonder and question the characters.

in paragraph 6 of "sinners in the hands of an angry god" by jonathan edwards, he talks about how doing good things alone will not save men from going to hell because they're at the mercy of the will of god. "spiritual reform" provides men with a false sense of safety.

one is a red flower, and one is the sky when the sun sets.