Free Will vs. Forced Action: Orwell's Shooting an Elephant

Introduction

In his 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 states, forced actions are caused by forces external to the agent. This paper evaluates the validity of that argument as applied to George Orwell's short essay "Shooting an Elephant," using Stace's definitions of free and forced actions as the analytical framework.

Stace's Definition of Free and Forced Actions

In his article "Is Determinism Inconsistent with Free Will?", Walter Terrence Stace puts forth an argument for compatibilism, arguing that determinism is consistent with free will. He holds that free will exists and that every event in the world is caused. He illustrates the compatibility of these two positions by offering his own definition of what exactly constitutes free will.

Stace begins by expressing that for a definition to be correct, it ought to accord with common usage. Defining free will, therefore, requires an examination of how the phrase is used in ordinary life settings. Stace draws on everyday conversations — for instance, asking a hungry man in an arid region whether he is fasting of his own free will (to which he would most likely answer negatively) and asking Gandhi whether he is fasting of his own free will (to which he would most likely answer affirmatively). He uses the responses generated by these examples to develop a criterion for distinguishing free actions from forced ones.

Stace concludes that an action is free if it is directly caused by the agent's own psychological states — that is, the person's desires, emotions, wishes, thoughts, and so on. An action is not free, by contrast, if it is caused by forces external to the agent. In other words, all actions are caused; the difference is whether the cause is internal or external to the doer.

There is, however, one significant problem with this interpretation: psychological states are sometimes themselves caused by external factors. Stace addresses this through an example in which a man hands his wallet to a thief who is holding a gun to his head. At face value, because the man acts out of fear and desperation — internal psychological states — this might wrongly be classified as a free action. Stace describes such cases as "borderline" or "mixed," and argues that because the thought of the gun pressed to the man's head is so closely analogous to the gun's actual physical force, the action can still be said to have been driven by an external force.

Applying Stace's Framework to Orwell's 'Shooting an Elephant'

In his essay "Shooting an Elephant," George Orwell illustrates how society compelled him to commit an action he did not wish to commit. As a British police officer in Burma, Orwell had been the target of ridicule, hatred, and insults from the Burmese, who viewed the British as oppressive colonizers. He hated his role as an officer and, to a significant degree, felt conflicted about the Burmese people themselves. The story centers on a specific moment when Orwell faced the decision of whether to kill an elephant that had rampaged through the community and caused the death of a Burmese man.

Owing partly to his ambivalence about the Burmese, Orwell felt the elephant was more valuable than the harm it had caused and did not deserve to die, especially since by the time he arrived the animal appeared calm and would likely only become dangerous if provoked. Nevertheless, with thousands of Burmese civilians pressing behind him and urging him to shoot, Orwell argues that he had no real choice. In other words, he presents the killing as a forced action.

At face value, Orwell's action can be interpreted as free, because he acted out of fear — specifically, fear of looking like a fool and of the crowd turning against him if he refused. Based on Stace's framework, this would mean Orwell killed the elephant of his own free will, and his claim that he had no choice would lack foundation.

Looking more closely at the situation, however, it qualifies as a borderline case. Orwell's fear was a direct result of the crowd's yelling and expectations. Just as the man in Stace's example was coerced by the gun held to his head, Orwell was coerced by the expectant crowd pressing behind him. For this reason, it can be concluded that Orwell did not kill the elephant of his own free will, and his argument that he had no choice is therefore valid.

Conclusion

Ethos is the ethical appeal, in which a writer attempts to persuade readers by appealing to his or her own character and credibility (Baxter, 2004). Orwell presents himself as someone who hated his job and imperialism in general. There is no evidence of him retaliating against 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 — someone who prefers to resolve disputes amicably rather than through coercion. This depiction makes it relatively easy for the reader to trust his claim that he did not want to kill the elephant. Since he regards the use of force as evil, the reader can reasonably expect him to have preferred a peaceful resolution, such as allowing wildlife service officials to manage the elephant without any loss of life.

Logos is the appeal to logic, in which a writer attempts to persuade by appealing to reason (Lockhart, 2010). Orwell uses this device in several instances to support his argument that shooting the elephant was not his intention and that he was compelled to act by the prevailing circumstances. First, he notes that the elephant was more valuable alive than dead: "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). He also equates the killing of the elephant to the destruction of a costly piece of machinery. Both instances signal to the reader that the author did not wish the elephant dead. Orwell further uses logos to help the reader understand how the crowd influenced his decision, noting that it numbered approximately 2,000 people — all of them expectant, excited, and certain that the elephant would be shot. This detail allows the reader to see clearly why the crowd exerted such pressure on him.

Pathos is the appeal to emotion. Orwell uses emotionally evocative language throughout the essay to draw readers in and reinforce the idea that he had no desire to kill the elephant (Bulman, 2007). One striking instance occurs when he describes the scene after the shooting: "he was breathing very rhythmically with long rattling gasps, his great mound of a side painfully rising and falling…" (Orwell, n.pag). Such passages engage the reader emotionally and portray the author as someone who shared in the elephant's suffering — and who would therefore have done anything to spare it.

Using these rhetorical devices, Orwell effectively convinces the reader that he did not intend for the elephant to die, and that his was only a forced action. Assessed through Stace's philosophical framework, the shooting is best understood as a borderline case of coercion: Orwell's fear was externally produced by the crowd, placing his decision in the same category as the man forced to hand over his wallet at gunpoint.