Free Will; Do We Have it or Not The question of free will is one which has been hotly debated for millennia. Some people believe that humans have the capacity for free will - the ability to choose their actions without being forced to follow a certain course by either by the influence of others or by natural laws. For many theists, free will is regarded as a special gift from God. The notion of human free will is also an important premise for a lot of what happens in human society - in particular, when it comes to our legal system. Free will is necessary for the notion of personal responsibility. If people do not have free will, then it is difficult to argue that they are personally and morally responsible for their actions - and if that is the case, how can they be punished for their misdeeds? In fact, how can they be praised for the good things they do, if those actions were not also freely chosen? George Orwell did not have free will when it came to shooting the elephant. Orwell expresses his conflicting views regarding imperialism through three examples of oppression by his country, by the Burmese, and by himself on the Burmese. Thus he was not morally responsible. This made Orwell realize his role in society and has made him a stronger man. But first let’s see what led to his feeling toward the Burmese people. The building up of the feeling of pressure starts with Orwell feeling humiliated and disrespected from the Burmese and shifts to a feeling of authority and presence as a result of the elephant's closeness. It was a common feeling for the Burmese to be bitter towards Europeans as a result of imperialism. It seemed as though the Burmese had grown a feeling of hatred towards the British Empire. They took their hatred as far as humiliating him by tripping him in a football field in front of a large sneering crowd. "In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves.” All this was confusing and upsetting for him to the point where it poked at his self-esteem, forcing him to dwell upon it and constantly making him feel that the Burmese people made his job impossible. British Imperialism dominated not only Burma, but also other countries that did not belong to England. At the time it may appear, from the outside, that the officers were helping the Burmese because they too were against oppressors; however, from the inside, they too were trying to annex other countries, this show how British were also oppressors. One could see that he didn't want to shoot the elephant. “It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. I was not squeamish about killing animals. But I had never shot an elephant and never wanted to. Somehow it always seems worse to kill a large animal." This shows that he really didn't want to shoot the animal. It was only out of pressure and to gain respect. He was put on the spot because the natives of the country viewed white men as being cruel and they were looking on expecting him to shoot. He felt pressured it's almost like he was forced into a role that he isn't quite made for. But convention has forced him to pull the trigger.

In the essay “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell describes an internal conflict between his personal morals and his duty to his country. Orwell’s decision to kill the elephant is a direct result of oppression. Oppression perhaps goes deeper than the average man would imagine, noticeably hindering even the lives of the oppressors. Orwell’s moral values are challenged in many different ways, ironically enough while he too was the oppressor. Oppression is shown by Orwell through the burden of servitude placed upon him by England: “I had already made up my mind that imperialism is an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically- and secretly of course- I was all for the Burmese and against their oppressors, the British. As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than perhaps I can make clear.” (853) “All I knew was that I was struck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beast who tried to make my job impossible” (853). Orwell finds himself in a moral predicament no different than the ones placed on the white men in the East. Orwell justifies his actions, “solely to avoid looking a fool,” driven by the instigation of the Burmese. Imagine yourself in Orwell’s position: hundreds of Burmese, who speak no English, like an army following behind you, misunderstanding your purpose and expecting a climactic death. What would you do? How would you react? The natives hinder Orwell’s intentions and thrust upon him their own (wanting him to shoot the elephant). Orwell himself, against his will, has oppressed many. It has been said that “what does not kill you will make you stronger”. George Orwell’s experience in “Shooting an Elephant” illustrates this quote to the greatest extent. The ordeal that Orwell went through was, without a doubt, a very agonizing experience. Upon reflecting, he comes to realize many life-long lessons that he was not aware of before the incident. Through this enlightening instance, Orwell’s character became stronger, the effects of what greed and power can do to a nation are shown, and the true behavior of humans are exploited. In today’s society, it is not uncommon to see people that “follow the crowd”. Many are afraid to express what they really feel because they are afraid of what others might think of them. Perhaps, the greatest thing that Orwell learned from shooting the elephant is that what is popular isn’t always right and what is right isn’t always popular. It was clear that the Burmese people wanted Orwell to shoot the elephant for the damage that it had done. Orwell knew, however, that it was not the right thing to do. As a result, when looking back upon this experience he is very regretful because he could have stood up for something that he believed was wrong. Underneath it all, Orwell questions his actions just as he questions those of the British. Orwell despised the British Empire as well as feel sorry for the Burmese natives, making everything more complicated and complex. The elephant represents imperialism; therefore, the slow destruction of the elephant must represent the slow demise of British Imperialism. We can see that Orwell doesn't like himself much because of this incident, and can only wonder how many more incidents such as this, possibly more serious in nature, could have occurred solely to avoid looking a fool. This really made me realize that by his country, by the Burmese, and by himself on the Burmese, Orwell expresses his conflicting views regarding imperialism through oppression.