When it comes down to the justification of actions, one can see it from two different perspectives. Chris McCandless, the protagonist from Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild, was a victim of decisions. He was raised wealthy, and his life was picture-perfect. Or is it a snare? He could have stayed in civilization and lived a normal life, but instead he adventured off into the deep wilderness that is Alaska. Are his actions justified? Or was he just being selfish and self-obsessed? I believe that he was justified in seeking something different from his boring life, though it was lavish. For example, his father was a very wealthy and smart individual. On the surface, he seems like a normal guy, but he holds a secret. He had a second family that Chris …show more content…
Since he had nobody to share his happiness with, he went off into the world on his own. He was searching for a purpose. Sometimes people just get the feeling that they want to connect with nature and survive off the land. Because he showed signs of wanting to be rescued from the forest, he realized that he didn't want to die and wanted to return to his life and even start a family. His decision could be perceived as selfish, but you could also see it as freedom from his boring life. We will never know the true reason for his departure, but I think that he went to try and escape his emotions rather than to experiment with exploring Alaska. In conclusion, Chris gives us a wide variety of moving factors and justificational decisions. While some can view his actions as selfish and reckless, it is necessary to know everything about the situation before declaring the report. His leap into nature was sudden and unexpected, but it was, in my opinion, the best decision he would ever make (besides the dying part). If he didn't go, his life would continue to be bland, and he would never feel like he had truly completed everything he wanted to and reached personal and emotional