"The Road" by Cormac McCarthy discussion

Where is the line of good and evil is it a clear line or is it blurred?

Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Alexander (new)

Alexander Sprauve (asprauve) | 20 comments There are certain moments in the book that are obviously repulsive. Such as the eating of human beings but my question is what about the grey areas where do you think the line is? Is it wrong for the mom to slit her wrist to save herself from suffering and a certain death where she may be eaten and raped? Is it wrong for the father to shoot his own son to spare him from being eaten? Was it wrong to take the man’s clothes since he tried to steal theirs and leave them to die? When its kill or be killed do you hesitate? Do you steal food to survive? Where do you draw the line?

message 2: by Heather (new)

Heather | 19 comments Mod
This is a very in depth question and I think the author tries to portray that there are definite lines between one and the other, but the fact stands that who knows what they would become when the circumstances are so severe. Perhaps an evil for one is the good for another. The others may think that the only way to keep the human race alive is to eat people that are not as healthy as them and that's what God would want them to do whereas others like the father and son see that as very evil.

message 3: by Ashley (new)

Ashley Guidace | 7 comments This brings up the question in class about whether or not we are born evil or if we are born good. Also, the question of whether or not morals should change in life or death situations is a good topic to discuss here. Like I said in class our morals shouldn't change but they often do. In the father and sons situation, they definitely do. I completely agree with Heather...evil for one may not be evil for other.

message 4: by Heather (new)

Heather | 19 comments Mod
Morals. For the father morals consist of the things taught in school, church, and from his parents in his upbringing. For the son morals consist of what his father has taught him. Therefore, I don't thinks it's as much of a person changing their morals it's the fact that the people have to reshape these morals into the current situations that they are presented with. The father doesn't teach the son about what would be accepted as far as laws are concerned because there's no one to uphold them. He has to teach him what he thinks is an acceptable way to live and that's what he goes by. It's the same with the other groups of people too. The children that were born after the disaster only know what they're taught and they're morals may have taught them that cannibalism is completely normal and that's why they do it, not because it would ever be accepted in old world. When there is no law or religion for the new children to turn to all they know is what their parents told him, and that's what they will follow and let lead their lives. The way the adults allow the world to reshape them is what results in what the book considers good and evil for the future generations.

message 5: by Alexander (new)

Alexander Sprauve (asprauve) | 20 comments Oh this brings up a new question I will start a new thread post on it!

back to top