Inductive and deductive reasoning in Richard Connell's "The Most Dangerous Game

¶ … Dangerous Game

Richard Connell's the Most Dangerous Game: Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

In Richard Connell's the Most Dangerous Game (1924), both inductive and deductive reasoning are used. Here, it is important to address the use of both of these types of reasoning, define them, and also analyze how they relate to reason vs. instinct in the story - and how that can be expanded to address the same issues in the majority of people. While Connell's story is an enjoyable read, there is much more to it from a psychological standpoint. Everyone looks at the world differently, but when people attempt to reason something out there is only two ways they can do that: inductively and deductively (Gray, 2011). While one form of reasoning may work very well for certain situations, the other form of reasoning may be a far better choice in other situations. The understanding of which kind of reasoning to use, and the determination of how to employ that reasoning, is a large part of the reason vs. instinct argument and whether a person will be successful in determining what to do in a situation.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning involves taking a specific example and using it to arrive at a general proposition (Carlson & Heth, 2009). This took place in Connell's (1924) work when Rainsford was told what General Zaroff was doing on the island. He was hunting the biggest game of all: people (Connell, 1924). Immediately, Rainsford took this specific example of the hunt and stated that it fit into the broad, general category of murder. Zaroff, on the other hand, saw it not as murder but as a hunt and a hobby. Rainsford's inductive reasoning in this particular scenario is understandable, because the majority of civilized people would think that hunting human beings would be murder. However, there are people who would not share this view, because they would not make the same leap from hunt to murder (Carlson & Heth, 2009). This would generally be because they do not see hunting animals as murder, and humans are, technically, just animals. So it is not murder when a person is being hunted in the same way that a big game animal would be hunted, according to Zaroff (Connell, 1924). While that might not be the opinion of too many people, it is a valid inductive reasoning argument.

Deductive Reasoning

Unlike inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning takes a general proposition and turns it into a specific example. In Connell's (1924) work, this occurred when Rainsford and General Zaroff were discussing the hunt. The general proposition of Rainsford (that the hunt of a human being is murder) was taken and deductively reasoned by Zaroff to be not the case. Zaroff took this view because he was not going out and murdering people on the street at random, nor was he going after individuals who had wronged him and trying to murder them for vengeance. Instead, he was hunting a specific person as big game in the same manner that a person would hunt a tiger, a bear, or another large animal: for sport (Connell, 1924). One, in his eyes, did not equal the other. The general proposition that hunting a person is murder was taken to a specific example by Zaroff, and he failed to see how his hobby of hunting a person as big game equated to actually murdering a person. The discrepancy would not be one that would be seen by every person, but it is one that would be seen by the majority of people. No matter the discussion, Zaroff and Rainsford were never going to see eye-to-eye based on what was hunting and what was murder where human beings were concerned.

Reason vs. Instinct

Reason vs. instinct is a strong theme in Connell's (1924) work. This is seen in several places throughout the story, including early on when Rainsford is trying to get a better feel for where the sound of gunshots came from. He jumps up on the rail of the yacht with no one around, running completely on instinct (Connell, 1924). Taking time to reason this out would have told him that he could fall and, since he was the only person on deck at that time of night, that no one would be around to see that he had fallen and rescue him. His instinct also took over when he dropped his pipe while standing on the rail (Connell, 1924). Reaching for the pipe was pure instinct. When a person drops something, more often than not he or she reaches for the dropped object in an effort to catch it (Carlson & Heth, 2009; Gray, 2011). While that makes complete sense from an instinctual standpoint, reason would say that Rainsford was putting himself far too much at risk because he was leaning out over an open ocean with no one around. He did fall, putting him in great peril.

Instinct saved him shortly afterward, however, because he remembered where the gunshots had come from and swam in that direction (Connell, 1924). At that point, he was using both reason and instinct. His reasoning told him that he could not catch the yacht, and so he instinctively swam toward the sound of the gunshots. Had he not done so, and swam after the yacht instead, he may have completely missed the island in the dark. He could have easily been completely lost at sea, and he would have drown or fallen victim to a predator such as a shark. While reason and instinct served him well there, he had more trouble with the issue when he arrived at the island. As soon as he found out that General Zaroff was hunting people as "big game" on his island, he was appalled and his instinctive reaction was to make that clear (Connell, 1924). If he had spent some time reasoning out the reaction that General Zaroff might have, Rainsford might have determined that it would be better to keep quiet and even participate in an effort to eventually get safely off the island. Instead, he became the hunted because of the courage of his convictions.