Final answer:
In the short story "The Most Dangerous Game," Rainsford appears to be justified in killing Zaroff as an act of self-defense. Zaroff hunts Rainsford for sport, leaving him no option but to respond with lethal force to ensure his own survival. The narrative, as well as general moral and legal standards, support self-defense when it prevents serious harm or death.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question "Is Rainsford justified in killing Zaroff?" pertains to the short story "The Most Dangerous Game," by Richard Connell, where the protagonist, Rainsford, is forced into a hunt where he is the prey of a man named General Zaroff. The ethical question of killing in self-defense is raised when Rainsford orchestrates the death of his pursuer to save his own life. When considering if Rainsford's actions are justified, one must consider the context of the situation: Rainsford is trapped on an island and being hunted purely for sport. The act of self-preservation appears justified when all possible non-violent means of escape or resolution have been exhausted, and the only remaining option to ensure one's own survival is to kill the aggressor.
In the context of the story, Rainsford is portrayed as having no other choice if he wishes to live. The story subjects him to a series of life-threatening ordeals orchestrated by Zaroff, whose sadistic pleasure in hunting humans is depicted as immoral and inhumane. Despite the grave moral implications, in literature and by many legal and moral standards, self-defense is often considered justifiable when it is the only means to prevent imminent and serious harm or death.
Thus, within the realm of the story, the debate typically leans towards the interpretation that Rainsford is indeed justified in killing Zaroff due to the extraordinary circumstances imposed upon him and the human instinct to survive when faced with mortal danger.