Shooting An Elephant Dilemma

People all over the world have to make choices that can, and will, change certain areas of their lives. Some will be more important than others. They can be defining moments in many's lives, as it was for the narrator of "Shooting an Elephant." He made a decision in the moment, one that can be difficult to analyze. One must take the ethics of the action into consideration, as well as his motivation and how the action affected him after. Just figuring out the details of his decision can show what kind of person he was; whether or not he was doing it out of cruelty, looking out for others, or for himself. The choice changed his life greatly from before and after, not only in terms of himself, but also those around him.
The protagonist and narrator of "Shooting an Elephant" made a decision that many would consider unjust. He shot and killed and elephant. Looking from the outside in, it would look as if he was a terrible person from what he did, for a vast amount of people consider the act wrong morally. Although, one must take in his intentions of the act too. He never wanted, nor planned, to kill the elephant. The Burmese people rooting him on seemed irrefutable, and he felt as if he was doing what they wanted him to. That contradicts the idea that the narrator of this story was a monstrous person because he shot an elephant.
The
In the case of the narrator of "Shooting an Elephant," it revealed that, though he had good intentions, he was selfish and easily persuaded, but he was also empathetic. It was through the examination of the morals of the action, his motivation, and how the action impacted him that this conclusion was made. He made a split second decision that affected him greatly, and showed what the most important thing was to him: himself. Through the story, he showed both good and bad characteristics. All in all, he may not be a villain, but he is not a hero