In "the most dangerous game," general zaroff argues with rainsford, saying that his hunt is not immoral and does not qualify as murder. which man-rainsford or zaroff-presents the stronger arguement?

It depends on the perspective you would like to look from, as well as the type of environment you grew up in. To explain, we may have to connect many points of views into today's views to have an understanding of each side, and to help us see which one may have the "stronger argument". However, the points can vary from person to person, and it is left to the reader to discern which one to choose.

Both have their attributes based on their lifestyle, life history, and their point of view. The question given to you is the question of whether General Zaroff's hunt is immoral or not. In the event of the hunt, it is described as Zaroff hunting his "game" or humans who wash up on his shore, and that if the game is able to elude him long enough, he lets them live. This is "fair" in the eyes of Zaroff, who is, as noted in the story, a Cossack, a people group that is known for their bloodlust & military backgrounds. Not only does he provide the means and allows the prey to have the means of survival (being provided a knife, as well as some other tools), but also allowed their knowledge to elude him. The area in which he provides for his hunts also provide a psychological background, in which, when the hunted is thrown into a world of unknown, that they are able to not only have the survival skills needed, but is able to keep their head straight and not only learn the place on the go but also survive off of it. This seems to give Zaroff the thought that his hunt is in fact not immoral, for:

1) Humans kill each other at all times, whether in war, murders, etc. They also degrade other human beings, as seen in slavery, promotion of 'Aryan' races, etc. This leads him to the belief that justifies his hunt, which is that the strong lives and becomes more powerful, while the weak is rooted out and destroyed. This also may elude to the Age of Imperialism, which sees to "stronger" countries taking advantage of others (the hunted).

2) His belief that Game is only fair, if both sides are on equal playing fields: Even if school teaches you that humans came from "Apes", it is not true, for the humans carry a larger capability as well as capacity in thinking rationally, as well as formulating thoughts and actions. This may work not in the favor of progressing the human race, as it can lead to destruction of people of the came "species". Take for example, Zaroff. Zaroff believes that the destruction of the weak is necessary, and that only the strong survive (extremely similar to the popular belief of "Theory of Evolution"). However, in a real world society, while people frown upon those who cannot contribute into what the world thinks are the most "needed" things, those who do not fit into the societies' "standards" have contributed in other ways that may seem small or lacking at first, but soon would stand out and be given an ovation when time passes. However, in the beliefs of Rainsford, he believes that all people should have the same right, as the "preservation of humanity". However, he is not able to influence Zaroff's way of thought, which also eludes to today's society.

the answer to this question