Justifiable: The Case Of George And Lennie

In order to understand if killing someone is justifiable you need to put yourself in someone’s situation. Imagine you’re in a car accident with your best friend, and she’s injured severely. In this moment, she knows she’s dying an uncomfortable death, your friend tells you to end their pain. As she takes possibly her last gasps of air, you have a decision to make, end or keep her life as this is a 50/50 chance situation. This would be one example of a justifiable act, along with situations such as war ethics, hunting for sport, and in the case of George and Lennie.

In the case of military ethics, a person should have the choice to kill in order to defend their country. People should look to see this is justifiable, “Consider the situation
Sport or trophy-hunting is defined as, “People willing to pay big money to kill animals, the thinking goes, the private sector has a strong motivation to make sure at least some of them remain alive.” The article also declared, “...as long as hunters are willing to travel to challenging and remote places, the industry provides conservation…” (Dymoke). This evidence helps prove that the government wants to capitalize the fact that they have a unique animal, however they don’t want to hunt it, and others, to extinction. Another article states, “As hard as it is to accept that killing animals can be integral to their survival, the fact remains: without trophy-hunting, many of Africa’s iconic species would be worse off,” to elaborate further, it states, “South Africa’s white rhinos numbered only 1,800 when trophy-hunting started there in 1968. Today there are almost 20,000” (Knight). This quote helps you figure out why the animal population goes up and down. For example, one author saw the point of species that were not hunted, were worse on their own.

George’s act of killing Lennie was justifiable because George knew he was responsible for Lennie. One situation that helps us realize this is in chapter