Free and Forced Actions Analyzing an Argument In the article, Is Determinism inconsistent with free will? Walter Stace argues that every action or event is caused; however, whereas free actions are caused by the doer's internal psychological state, forced ones are caused by forces external to the user. This text evaluates the validity of the author's argument in the short story, 'Shooting an Elephant' based on Stace's definition of free and forced actions.

Free and Forced Actions

Stace's Definition of Free and Forced Actions

In the article, Is Determinism inconsistent with free will?', Walter Terrence Stace puts forth an argument for determinism, arguing that it is consistent/compatible with free will. He is of the view that free will exists and every event in the world is caused (Colorado University, n.d.). He illustrates the compatibility of these two views by giving his own definition of what exactly constitutes free will. Stace begins by expressing that in order for a definition to be correct, it ought to accord with a common usage (Colorado University, n.d.). Defining free will, therefore, requires one to examine how the phrase is used in ordinary life settings. Stace makes use of ordinary conversations, for instance, asking a hungry man in a dry area whether he was fasting out of his own free will (which he will most likely answer negatively), and asking Gandhi whether he was fasting out of his own free will (which he most likely will answer in the affirmative) (Colorado University, n.d.). He uses the responses obtained from these examples to develop a criterion for defining free and forced actions.

Stace concludes that an action is a free action if it is directly caused by the agent's psychological states, that is, the person's own desires, emotions, wishes, thoughts, and so on (Colorado University, n.d.). On the other hand, an action is not free if it is caused by forces external to the agent (Colorado University, n.d.). In other words, according to Stace's interpretation, all actions are caused; however, free actions are caused by internal psychological states whereas those that are not free are caused by forces external to the doer.

However, there is one major problem with Stace's interpretation -- at times, psychological states are caused by external factors or agents. Stace uses one example to illustrate this -- a man gives his wallet to a thief, who is holding a gun to his head. At face value, this would wrongly be described as a free action, just because the man acted out of fear and desperation. However, Stace describes this as a 'borderline' or 'mixed' case, and opines that since the thought of the gun on the man's head is so similar to the gun's actual force, the man's actions can be said to have been driven by an external force (Colorado University, n.d.).

Using Stace's Definition to Assess the Validity of Orwell's Argument in 'Shooting the Elephant'

In his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant', George Orwell illustrates how society forced him into committing an action that he did not want to commit. As a British military officer in Burma, Orwell had been a subject of ridicule, hatred, and insults from the Burmese, who felt that the British were using their power and influence to oppress and colonize them. He, therefore, hated his life as a police officer in Burma, and hated the Burmese people just as much as he hated his job. The story is based on a particular time when Orwell was faced with the decision of whether or not to kill an elephant that had wreaked havoc in the community and killed an innocent Burmese. Owing to his hatred for the Burmese, Orwell felt that the elephant was more valuable than the Burmese victim and did not, therefore, deserve to die, regardless of the damage it had caused. Moreover, at the time, the elephant appeared peaceful and would only become violent if disturbed. However, with thousands of Burmese civilians behind him urging him to shoot the elephant, Orwell tries to convince the reader that he had no choice. In other words, Orwell argues that the matter of killing the elephant was a forced action.

In this section, we assess the validity of Orwell's argument based on Stace's definition of free and forced actions. At face value, Orwell's action can be interpreted as free, because he acted out of fear -- fear that he would look like a fool and the crowd would bay for his blood if he did not kill the elephant. Based on Stace's interpretation, therefore, Orwell killed the elephant out of his own free will, and the argument that he had no choice, therefore, has no basis.

Therefore, just as the man in Stace's example was forced to act by the gun on his head, Orwell was forced to act by the expectant crowd behind him. For this reason, we can conclude that Orwell did not kill the elephant out of his own free will, and the argument that he had no choice is, therefore, valid.
Part Two: Rhetorical Strategies Used by Orwell in 'Shooting the Elephant'

Orwell spends the better part of his essay trying to convince his readers that it was not his will to kill the elephant, and that he only did it because he had no choice. He manages to persuade the reader in the end this through a number of rhetorical devices. This section dwells on Orwell's use of three of these devices -- ethos, pathos, and logos, demonstrating how each one helped him realize his objective.

Ethos: this is the ethical appeal, where a speaker attempts to persuade his readers by appealing to his character and credibility (Baxter, 2004). Orwell presents himself as a person who hated his job and imperialism in general. There is no evidence of him fighting back at the Burmese, even when they jeered and insulted him, despite the fact that he had the power to do so. This portrays him as a lover of peace, and one who prefers to solve disputes amicably rather than through invasion and fighting. This depiction makes it relatively easy for the reader to trust the argument that he did not want to kill the elephant -- he hates the use of force and considers it evil; one would, therefore, expect him to prefer other peaceful means of resolving a crisis, for instance, allowing wildlife service officials to handle the elephant in such a way that no deaths would come about.

Logos: this is the appeal to logic; the speaker or writer attempts to persuade his audience by appealing to reason/logic (Lockhart, 2010). Orwell uses this feature in a number of instances to support the argument that it was not his intention to shoot the elephant, and that he was only forced to do so by the prevailing circumstances. First, he mentions that the elephant was more valuable alive than dead -- in his words, "alive, the elephant was worth at least a hundred pounds; dead, he would only be worth the value of his tusks, five pounds possibly" (Orwell, n.pag). In another instance, he equates the killing of the elephant to the destruction of a costly and valuable piece of machinery. These two instances already indicate to the reader that the author did not wish for the elephant to be dead. Orwell also uses logos to get the reader to understand exactly how the crowd dictated his decision to shoot the elephant. He mentions that the crowd was of a significant size, consisting of approximately 2000 yellow-faced Burmese, all happy, excited, and certain that the elephant would be killed -- with this, the author makes the reader see exactly why the crowd had an effect on him, and why it was able to dictate his decision in the end.

Pathos: this is the appeal to the reader's emotions. Orwell uses words that evoke emotion numerous times in the essay to get the reader emotionally involved, so they would understand that he indeed had no intention of killing the elephant (Bulman, 2007). One perfect use of pathos is when he visualizes the scene of the shooting such as when he mentions that "he was breathing very rhythmically with long rattling gasps, his great mound of a side painfully rising and falling ... " (Orwell, n.pag). Such passages get the reader emotionally involved and portray the author as one who shared in the elephant's pain, and who would, therefore, have given anything not to see it go through the same.

Using these rhetorical devices, Orwell manages to effectively convince the reader that he did not intend for the elephant to be dead, and that his was only a forced action.