"When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity"

George Bernard Shaw draws attention to the double standard humans use when justifying their actions compared to those of animals. Calling the killing of a tiger "sport" allows humans to disguise violence as a noble or recreational activity, imbuing it with prestige and even pride. Yet, when a tiger attacks a human, the act is deemed an expression of "ferocity", an unthinking, savage instinct, and a crime against the supposed order maintained by people. Shaw exposes the hypocrisy inherent in how motivations and morality are ascribed based on perspective rather than objective ethics.

The language chosen reflects the dominant narrative. Humans grant themselves the agency to define terms, controlling the boundaries between civilization and savagery, right and wrong. By labeling their own predatory acts as "sport", people distance themselves from the brutality involved, hiding behind words that suggest skill, challenge, or tradition. This self-justification diminishes the moral weight of killing and elevates the human above the animal, both in action and in moral standing.

Conversely, labeling the tiger's self-defense or natural predatory behavior as "ferocity" frames the animal as dangerous, irrational, or evil, ignoring the tiger’s own struggle for survival. The act that is a necessity for the tiger becomes a villainous crime only when it threatens human life. Such framing denies the tiger its context and portrays human life as inherently more valuable. The asymmetry in judgment demonstrates a broader human tendency to create moral exceptions for itself, often at the expense of other forms of life. Shaw urges a reflection on these differences, prompting questions about fairness, power, and the ethics of assigning values based on self-interest. Through this irony, he challenges readers to consider whose perspective shapes our morals and how language can obfuscate deeper truths about our actions.