Why does Connell include the "philosophical" discussion between Whitney and Rainsford at the beginning of the story? Does it reveal a personal limitation on Rainsford's part? Does Rainsford undergo any significant changes in the course of the story? Do we come to know him better as the story proceeds?
The Most Dangerous Game is an example of escape type fiction so any theme presented will be pretty weak. Still, the philosophical question posed by Whitney offers insight into the character of Rainsford as well as some foreshadowing ahead. Rainsford considers animals inferior to humans and incapable of processing basic emotions like fear. Should hunters be more empathetic with animals? Rainsford will have none of it. Of course this sets up the motif of the famous hunter becoming the hunted later on in the story. Does Rainsford change at the end of the story as a result of being hunted? I really don't know because perhaps it doesn't matter. The characters are so flat and the plot so far-fetched that it is difficult to come up with any real insight into the theme.
