Write a paragraph explaining whether or not the man in “To Build a Fire” would have been justified if he had successfully killed his dog. Can you explain why or why not.

Answer 1

It is difficult to say whether or not the man in "To Build a Fire" would have been justified in killing his dog, as it depends on the context and the specific actions of the man. In the story, the man is stranded in the wilderness and facing extreme cold temperatures. He may have considered killing his dog as a last resort to survive, as a source of warmth or food. However, it's important to note that the man in the story is portrayed as being unprepared and inexperienced in the wilderness, and his poor judgement led him to make many mistakes that contributed to his predicament.

In general, it is not morally justifiable to kill an animal for convenience or out of carelessness or lack of planning. Killing an animal should only be done in cases of self-defense or in cases where it's necessary for survival, and even then, it should be done as humanely as possible. Furthermore, the man could have considered other options like building a fire, using the matches, or using his knife to cut branches to make a shelter, before deciding to kill his dog.

In conclusion, whether or not the man in "To Build a Fire" would have been justified in killing his dog ultimately depends on the specific actions and intentions of the man in the story. However, it's important to consider that taking the life of another being should always be a last resort and done with great consideration, and the man in the story didn't seem to have those characteristics.