Values In George Orwell's Shooting An Elephant And Peter H. Lee

A person’s values play a significant role in shaping their identity and influencing their thought process throughout their life. Moreover, it is especially important to possess the ability to reconcile conflicting values when faced with challenging situations. This is evident in George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant and Peter H. Lee’s English translation of Cranes, where characters encounter dilemmas that put their values in conflict with each other. Likewise in reality, individuals often find themselves in similar predicaments where they must navigate conflicting values to achieve a satisfactory outcome. The process of balancing values can be complex and may require one to weigh various considerations before arriving at a decision. However

Orwell acknowledged both the practical advantages of the living elephant as well as the ethical significance of life. Because of this, he “had no intention of shooting the elephant” (Orwell 5) and believed it would be unjustified to do so. Despite this, Orwell felt the urge to shoot the elephant because of his desire for public acceptance from the Burmese. Orwell’s views shifted as he attempted to please the public that he was supposedly in control of. This made him feel as if he was “an abused puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind” (5). In the end, he decides to override his moral compass and shoot the calm elephant to avoid humiliation from the crowd. Orwell admits this when he states that he “had done it solely to avoid looking a fool” (8). George Orwell portrays human nature through people's tendency to disregard self-righteousness for a positive appraisal from others. Within these difficult decisions, individuals must establish their true values and apply them to the situation at hand to ensure a desirable outcome is achieved. Though Orwell’s story explores a conclusion boiled from fear and negative emotions, others can explore more righteous

In my own experiences, I have encountered such a situation in the form of a conflict between my personal well-being and a childhood friendship. For many, the first year of high school is a transformative period, characterised by newfound freedom and exposure to diverse groups of people. Consequently, the friendship my friend and I had built across many years of school, soccer, and hanging out was tested. As inseparable as we were, our unfortunate timetables forced us to spend more time with others. Without a single class together, we naturally began to drift apart. During this time, I noticed changes in his behaviour which I attributed to his new friend group who introduced him to harmful substances. My attempts at dissuading him from continuing were met with resistance and pressure to join him in the activities. Faced with this predicament, I was compelled to decide between exposing myself to negative influences or abandoning my childhood friend. Ultimately, I chose to drift apart, enabling me to live my life on my terms, but it also allowed my friend to spiral down the wrong path. Although I am content with my decision, I cannot help but wonder if there was a better solution in which I could have guided him to the same path as