Let's begin by directly answering the question. Please, keep in mind this question is asking for a personal opinion. You can use this answer as a template in case you disagree with the opinion expressed:
Yes, I believe Zaroff is right when he says, "Instinct is no match for reason." It was our ability to reason that led us to humans to survive and thrive in extreme environments all over the world. It was reason that allowed us to learn from the past and to develop intellectually. That does not mean reason cannot be used for the bad. We do, in fact, use it to destroy, be it with pesticides or with an atomic bomb, for instance. But still, the amazing scientific and technological advances we see in the modern world - take vaccines, smartphones, or 3D printers as an example - are proof of how reason helped us prevail, evolve, and survive.
The character mentioned in the question is general Zaroff, from the short story "The Most Dangerous Game" by American author Richard Connell (1893-1949). Zaroff is a Russian general who lives secluded in an island. His hobby is hunting, and he has grown quite proficient in it. So much so that he no longer sees animals as enough of a challenge. Zaroff now hunts men, who, because of their ability to reason, are more difficult preys. As a matter of fact, the main conflict in the story begins when Zaroff decides to hunt the main character, Rainsford.
In conclusion, <u>the general values humans' ability to reason, but uses it as an excuse to make them his prey</u>. Although his argument that reason is better than instinct is not necessarily wrong, his actions are immoral and indefensible.
Learn more about Zaroff here:
brainly.com/question/6714590?referrer=searchResults
