In the post-apocalyptic world of "The Road," the ethics by which we are brought up by and taught to live by are subject to change, especially in when it comes to survival. Stuck in a grey, ash covered world, the man and his son, seen by many as the "word of God" (Pg. 5), the two must learn to adapt to their surroundings and the situation that they are in. However, the man and his son, along with all their foes, have changed their ethics in different ways.
With all characters in "The Road" forced to adapt and change their ways, there are likely to be different ways of changing. First off, the "bad guys" have always seemed to steer their change toward cannibalism in a post apocalyptic world. For example, the man and his son stumble upon a nomad tribe of survivors who were roasting a baby over a fire. The ethics of these people have clearly gone out of the window. Their ethics have really not adapted but rather disappeared. This change in their ethics most likely occurred because of their situation, or in other words they are using situational ethics. Situational ethics under the Joseph Fletcher model is "decision making should be based upon a particular situation, not upon fixed Law." I mean cannibalism is never good, however in life or death situations, people sometimes resort to cannibalism to survive, but never the "good guys."
As for the good guys in the story, the man and the boy take a different approach towards ethics. Not only do they differ from the nomad tribe of cannibals in the story but also from each other. Different from the bad guys, the man and his son do not eat people and only kill unless provoked. In the story, the man and his son "scavenge, they even steal, and they dont help anyone; nor do they trust anyone else." So in the end, they did change their ethics to adapt to the world that they are living in, but unlike the cannibals mentioned earlier, they do not kill or eat people.
The man and his son have both changed their ethics to survive in this post-apocalyptic world that they have found themselves in. However, has the boy really changed his ethics to be like his father, or is the father not allowing his son to change his ethics and become like him? Or is the boy simply refusing to change, which as a result, makes his father a better man? Throughout the story the boy refuses to do some things and sometimes even goes against what his father says. For example, when the boy and his father encounter the old man by the name of Ely, they boy has to almost convince his father to allow them to help him. At one point, "the boy squatted and but his hand on his shoulders. He's just scared Papa. The man is scared" (Pg. 162). His father also seems to hold back his ethics by making little promises with the boy, like not making food or drink for just the boy. Like on page 34, when the boy calls out his father for only making hot cocoa for him by saying, "You promised you wouldn't do that." In the end, the boy seems to become "the source of ethics" in a post-apocalyptic world without a god.
SOURCES: "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy (obviously)
With all characters in "The Road" forced to adapt and change their ways, there are likely to be different ways of changing. First off, the "bad guys" have always seemed to steer their change toward cannibalism in a post apocalyptic world. For example, the man and his son stumble upon a nomad tribe of survivors who were roasting a baby over a fire. The ethics of these people have clearly gone out of the window. Their ethics have really not adapted but rather disappeared. This change in their ethics most likely occurred because of their situation, or in other words they are using situational ethics. Situational ethics under the Joseph Fletcher model is "decision making should be based upon a particular situation, not upon fixed Law." I mean cannibalism is never good, however in life or death situations, people sometimes resort to cannibalism to survive, but never the "good guys."
As for the good guys in the story, the man and the boy take a different approach towards ethics. Not only do they differ from the nomad tribe of cannibals in the story but also from each other. Different from the bad guys, the man and his son do not eat people and only kill unless provoked. In the story, the man and his son "scavenge, they even steal, and they dont help anyone; nor do they trust anyone else." So in the end, they did change their ethics to adapt to the world that they are living in, but unlike the cannibals mentioned earlier, they do not kill or eat people.
The man and his son have both changed their ethics to survive in this post-apocalyptic world that they have found themselves in. However, has the boy really changed his ethics to be like his father, or is the father not allowing his son to change his ethics and become like him? Or is the boy simply refusing to change, which as a result, makes his father a better man? Throughout the story the boy refuses to do some things and sometimes even goes against what his father says. For example, when the boy and his father encounter the old man by the name of Ely, they boy has to almost convince his father to allow them to help him. At one point, "the boy squatted and but his hand on his shoulders. He's just scared Papa. The man is scared" (Pg. 162). His father also seems to hold back his ethics by making little promises with the boy, like not making food or drink for just the boy. Like on page 34, when the boy calls out his father for only making hot cocoa for him by saying, "You promised you wouldn't do that." In the end, the boy seems to become "the source of ethics" in a post-apocalyptic world without a god.
SOURCES:
"The Road" by Cormac McCarthy (obviously)
http://beyondunknowing.wordpress.com/...
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/sit...