Of Mice And Men Argumentative Analysis

People should have the choice of whether to live or die. In Of Mice And Men, by John Steinbeck, the two main characters Lennie and George are hanging out by a pond making plans for the rest of their life. Then they go to a farm in Soledad. They acquire the job they wanted and became friends with a few of the people there. The farm’s most respected authority figure gives Lennie a puppy which he kills just a few days later along with the boss's son’s wife. Lennie runs away to the river by which the beginning scene of the book takes place. George promptly finds him and shoots him. George’s actions towards Lennie at the end of the story were not justified because Lennie has the right to live, Lennie should have gotten help for his mental instability, and just because someone is different doesn't mean they should have their life taken from …show more content…
Lennie is a person just like all of us. He has thoughts. He has feelings. Just like the rest of us. Granted he may be different, but aren't we all? It is not right to kill someone for being different. In the book, George and Slim were talking and playing cards when Lennie walked into the room. George knew that Lennie had brought the puppy into the bunkhouse so he made Lennie bring it back. Then Slim says to George “Jesus. He’s jes’ like a kid, ain’t he.” George responds with “Sure he’s jes’ like a kid. There ain’t no more harm in him than a kid neither, except he’s so strong. I bet he won’t come in here to sleep tonight. He’d sleep right alongside that box in the barn. Well-- let ‘im. He ain’t doin’ no harm out there.” (Steinbeck, 43) This quote shows that he was different than all the rest. He was much more childlike. The idea that George did the right thing by killing Lennie was very wrong because you don’t just kill someone for being