The Argument for Justification
* Zaroff's Cruelty: Zaroff is a sadistic murderer who enjoys hunting humans for sport. He has no regard for the lives of others and sees humans as mere prey.
* Self-Defense: Rainsford is forced to hunt Zaroff in self-defense to survive. Zaroff has made it clear that he will not stop until he kills Rainsford, and Rainsford has no other choice but to fight back.
* Moral Imperative: Some argue that killing Zaroff, a dangerous and morally corrupt individual, is morally justified to prevent further harm.
The Counterargument
* Rainsford's Actions: Rainsford, though initially resistant to the idea of hunting humans, does participate in Zaroff's game and even takes pleasure in the chase.
* The Nature of Hunting: The story explores the morality of hunting itself, questioning if it's ever truly ethical to kill another being for sport.
The Best Sentence
There's no single sentence that perfectly captures the complex justification for Rainsford's actions. Here's an option that captures the central elements:
"Driven to the brink by Zaroff's relentless pursuit and fueled by a righteous fury against his cruelty, Rainsford had no choice but to defend his life, turning the tables on the hunter who had become the hunted."
Important Note: The story is open to interpretation. There's no definitive answer on whether Rainsford is justified in killing Zaroff. This sentence presents a strong argument in favor of his actions, emphasizing self-defense and Zaroff's depravity.