Was Orwell Justified In Shooting An Elephant

Would any one second question shooting a mad dog that had already killed a man and caused large amounts of damage? In “Shooting an Elephant,” Orwell was justified in shooting the destructive elephant because he did not want to appear foolish to the locals, it had killed a man, and because the owner was responsible for not making sure the elephant was watched over.
The elephant had gone completely rampant by the time Orwell made his decision to kill it, so legally it was his duty to end his rampage. The elephant was destroying property “They had not shown much interest in the elephant when he was merely ravaging their homes,” (Orwell 3), and even killed a man “I rounded the hut and saw a man’s dead body sprawling in the mud,” (Orwell 3). Any animal that kills a man, or even causes a significant amount of destruction, …show more content…
If the elephant was properly supervised he would not have been free long when “The previous night it had broken its chain and escaped,” (Orwell 2). Why had the owner not properly chained the elephant up so that it could not break free? On top of that, why had he not made sure someone was watching over the elephant? When he is the “only person who could manage it when it was in that state,” (Orwell 2), he should make sure that he is close to the elephant when its must is due. When “The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it,” (Orwell 2), the owner losing an elephant does not compare to it “It had already destroyed somebody’s bamboo hut, killed a cow, and raided some fruit-stalls,” (Orwell 2). Most of all, he is to blame for the death of an Indian worker, which most would agree is more valuable than an animal that is treated like a piece of machinery. In the end “Legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it,” (Orwell