philosophy
1.Examine the arguments for and against Utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham and Bernard Williams respectively. Ensure to state and support your own position.
2.Post a discussion between 5-7 sentences that summarizes the argument and demonstrate adequate understanding of either Bentham or Williams on the ethical theory of utilitarianism.
3.Youwill now examine a case in which a defendant has asked the court to excuse them from criminal liability, or to reduce their liability, based on their culture. A cultural defense — or the assertion that a person’s different cultural background influenced his or her actions — can be used as a mitigating factor to help a defendant get a plea deal or a break on his sentence.
Defense lawyers claim that the idea of using a cultural defense is to help explain a defendant’s personal circumstances and why they would do what they did. This coincides with American notions of “individualized justice” and “cultural pluralism.” Supporters of this defense state they are not concerned with social consequences, i.e. if other immigrants think their behavior will be tolerated, because the concern of the court is whether or not the defendant is guilty based on all the evidence.
On the other hand, there is concern that increased use of the cultural defense will expose U.S. courts to patriarchal values from abroad — to the detriment of immigrant women, many of whom were treated as second-class citizens in the lands they left behind.
Some Americans do not want to import these cultural values into the judicial system and don’t want women victimized by customs that may no longer be permitted in the homelands. Americans don’t want so-called cultural experts perpetuating certain stereotypes that may not be accurate.Others point to the fact that the victims of these “cultural crimes” are always society’s powerless — women and children.Others claim that foreign customs should not override American law, since “[e]very foreigner residing in a country . . . is as much bound to obey its laws as native citizens.”Some worry about backlash,arguing that because of this defense where people get lesser penalties or convictions for lesser crimes,that people will believe that immigrants are getting away with something.
Case: In New York, Chinese immigrant Dong Lu Chen was convicted of manslaughter and given five years on probation for killing his wife. He had picked up a hammer and hit his wife eight times, leaving her to die in her bed. Chen, 51, who left China two years before, claimed a “cultural defense.” He said that a person raised outside the United States should not be held fully responsible for conduct which, while illegal in the U.S., might be acceptable in the home country.
Chen had killed his wife in their apartment because she had been unfaithful. At his trial in New York, his lawyer argued that traditional Chinese notions (customs/law) about the shame of adultery had propelled him to violence.
Directions:Read the following cases that used culture as a defense.
1. identify three arguments “for” the cultural defense; allowing culture to be taken into account for acts committed in the United States.
2. Also,please explain whether the person should be found guilty or innocent and for what length of sentence would you impose if any.
3. Your response should be no less than 250 words.I am looking that you examined this from a sociological perspective to include symbolicinteractionistperspectives on deviance: differential association theory, social bond theory, and labeling theory.
The Moral Life
2)
The Moral Life
An Introductory Reader
in Ethics and Literature
LOUIS P. POJMAN
New York Oxford
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2000
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta
Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul
Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai
Nairobi Paris Sao Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan
Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.,
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
http://www.oup-usa.org
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pojman, Louis P.
The moral life : an introductory reader in ethics and literature /
Louis P. Pojman.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-19-512844-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Ethics. I. Title.
BJ1025.P67 1999
170dc21 98-46486
CIP
Printing (last digit): 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Dedicated to
my colleagues in the English department
United States Military Academy
West Point
Where Philosophy and English
cross-fertilize each other
in a magnificent manner
k.
CONTENTS
Preface xiii
Introduction: On the Nature of Morality 1
PART I THE NATURE OF MORALITY: Good and Evil 5
1. What Is the Purpose of Morality? 7
William Golding / Lord of the Flies: A Moral Allegory 8
Louis P. Pojman / On the Nature and Purpose of Morality:
Reflections on William Golding’s Lord of the Flies 32
Thomas Hobbes / On the State of Nature 41
Further Readings 53
2. Good and Evil 55
-iik–1-ferman Melville / Billy Budd (58
Fyodor Dostoevski / Why Is Theme 70
lliam Styron / Sophie’s Choice 77
Philip Hallie / From Cruelty to Goodness 85
Stanley Berm / Wickedness 100
Friedrich Nietzsche / Beyond Good and Evil 121
Richard Taylor / On the Origin of Good and Evil 135
Further Readings 148
3. s Everything Relative? 149
erodotus / Custom Is King 150
uth Benedict / The Case for Moral Relativism 151
Louis P. Pojman / The Case Against Moral Relativism 160
Jean Bethke Elshtain / Judge Not? 186
vii
viii Contents
Henrick Ibsen / The Enemy of the People 196
Further Readings 218
PART II MORAL THEORIES AND MORAL CHARACTER 219
4. Utilitarianism 223
Seaman Holmes and the Longboat of the
William Brown, Reported by John William Wallace 225
Jeremy Bentham / Classical Utilitarianism 227
Kai Nielsen / A Defense of Utilitarianism 233
Bernard Williams / Against Utilitarianism _249
Ursula Le Guin / The Ones Who Walk Away
– from Omelas 262
Aldous Huxley / The Utilitarian Social Engineer and the
Savage (from Brave New World) 269
Further Readings 291
5. Deontological Ethics 292
Soren Kierkegaard / On Duty 294
Immanuel Kant / The Moral Law 297
W. D. Ross / Intuitionism 318
The Golden Rule 333
Richard Whatley / A Critique of the Golden Rule 334
Ambrose Bierce / A Horseman in the Sky 337 –
Charles Fried / The Evil of Lying 344
Thomas Nagel / Moral Luck 354
Further Readings 367
6. Virtue Ethics 368
Victor Hugo / The Bishop and the Candlesticks 370
Aristotle / Virtue Ethics 388
Bernard Mayo / Virtue and the Moral Life 405
Nathaniel Hawthorne / The Great Stone Face 411
William Frankena / A Critique of Virtue-Based
Ethical Systems 429
,—Joriathan Bennett / The Conscience of
Huckleberry Finn 440
Further Readings 455
Contents ix
7. Ves and Vices 457
esus of Nazareth / The Sermon on the Mount; The Good
Samaritan 458
Leo Tolstoy / How Much Land Does a Man Need? The Vice
of Greed 462
Immanuel Kant / Jealousy, Malice, and Ingratitude 477
Martin Gansberg / Moral Cowardice 485
elen Keller: Three Days to See: Gratitude 489
ice Admiral James Stockdale / Courage
and Endurance 499
Story of David and Bathsheba: Lust 514
Leo Tolstoy / Where Love Is, There Is God 518
Bertrand Russell / Reflections on Suffering 526
Charles Colson / The Volunteer at Auschwitz: Altruism 529
Further Readings 535
PART III MORAL ISSUES 537
8. Ethics and Egoism: Why Should We Be Moral? 539
Plato / The Ring of Gyges 541
James Rac e1s / Ethical Egoism 549
Ce Louis P. Pojman. Egoism, Self-Trite -re-Si; and Altr w 7
Further Readings 566
9. Does Life Have Meaning? 568
Epicurus / Hedonism 570
Epictetus and Others / Stoic Catechism 577
Albert Camus / Life Is Absurd 586
Lois Hope Walker / Religion Gives Meaning to Life 594
Viktor Frankl / The Human Search for Meaning:
Reflections on Auschwitz 601
iddhartha Gautama, the Buddha / The Four
Noble Truths 609
obert Nozick / The Experience Machine 615
urther Readings 618
10. Freedom, Autonomy, and Self -Respect 620
Martin Luther King, Jr. / I Have a Dream 621
x Contents
Stanley Milgram / An Experiment in Autonomy 625
Jean-Paul Sartre / Existentialism Is a Humanism 641
Thomas E. Hill, Jr. / Servility and Self-Respect 651
Further Readings 663
PART IV APPLIED ETHICS 665
11. Sex, Love, and Marriage 667
John. Barth / Pansexuality 668
10 Immanuel Kant / On the Place of Sex in
Human Existence 669
t The Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics 672
Et Raymond Angelo Belliotti / Sexual Intercourse Between
Consenting Adults Is Always Permissible 681
A Vincent Punzo / Sexual Intercourse Should Be
Confined to Marriage 690
4 Burton Leiser / Is Homosexuality Unnatural? 698 ‘
John McMurtry / Monogamy: A Critique 708
Michael D. Bayles / Marriage, Love, and Procreation:
A Critique of McMurtry 719 !-
0 Bonnie Steinbock / What’s Wrong With Adulteg? 734
Hugh LaFollette / Licensing Parents 740
Further Readings 754
0. Is Abortion Morally Permissible? 756
John T. Noonan, Jr. / Abortion Is Not
Morally Permissible 758
Mary Anne Warren / Abortion Is Morally Permissible 766
Jane English / The Moderate Position: Beyond the
Personhood Argument 775
Further Readings 787
13. Substance Abuse: Drugs and Alcohol 788
John Stuart Mill / On Liberty 790
Gore Vidal / Drugs Should Be Legalized 794
William Bennett / Drugs Should Not Be Legalized 797
Yoshida Kenko / On Drinking 803
Bonnie Steinbock / Drunk Driving 806
Further Readings 819
Contents xi
14. Our Duties to Animals 821
George Qrwell – / Shooting an Elephant 823
Immanuel Kant / We Have Only Indirect Duties
to Animals 830
—-PererSinger / Animal Liberation: All Animals
Are Equal 832
Carl Cohen / The Case Against Animal Rights 850
Mylan Engel, Jr. / The Immorality of Eating Meat 856
Further Readings 890
15.pur Duties to the Environment 891
Sophocles / On Mankind’s Power over Nature 897
Robert Heilbroner / What Has Posterity Ever Done
for Me? 898
Garrett Hardin / The Tragedy of the Commons 903
David Watson / We All Live in Bhopal 921
William F. Baxter / People or Penguins: The Case for
Optimal Pollution 928
Further Readings 936
PREFACE
This is a book integrating literature with philosophy, while also cov-
ering both classical and contemporary ethical theory and applied
topics. Literature often highlights moral ideas, focusing on particu-
lar people in their dilemmas, awakening our imagination to new
possibilities, and enabling us to understand the moral life in fresh
and creative ways. Good literature compels us to rethink and revise
our everyday assumptions. It sets before us powerful particularities,
which serve both as reinforcers and counterexamples to our sweep-
ing principles. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin chal-
lenged the assumptions of ante-bellum America and created great
sympathy for the abolitionist cause. Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at
Noon and George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 brought clearly
home to millions the dangers of totalitarianism. Dostoevski’s Crime
and Punishment made us aware of the haunting voice of con-
science that could overturn our best rationalization. William Gold-
ing’s Lord of the Flies is like a picture worth a thousand arguments
on why we need morality. William Styron’s Sophie’s Choice faces
us with the tragedy of moral choice when all options are unac-
ceptable. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World highlights the paradox
of freedom and welfare better than any political philosophy book
I’ve ever read. Victor Hugo’s bishop of Digne encountering Jean
Valjean is a more eloquent statement on the virtuous person than
anything ever published in professional journals on virtue ethics.
Tolstoy’s short stories on greed and love leave their indelible marks
on our souls. And so it goes. Good literature is the contemporary
equivalent of the parables of the New Testament. It makes the
abstract concrete, brings it home to the heart, and forces us to think
with innovative imagination.
Yet, acknowledging the element of truth in Kant’s rejection of
xiv Preface
the empirical and the need for examples in ethics, particularity often
is one-sided and passion-ridden. If it leaves us merely with gut reac-
tions to a particular tragedy, it tends toward bias and irrationality.
One needs cool-headed philosophical analysis to play a sturdy role
in sorting out the ambiguities and ambivalences in literature, to
abstract from particulars and universalize principles, to generate
wide-ranging intellectual theories. To paraphrase Kant, the pas-
sionate imagination of literature is blind without the cool head of
philosophy, but the cool head of philosophy is sterile and as frigid
as an iceberg without the passions of life, conveyed in literature.
I have endeavored to join forces, to unite literature and philos-
ophy in the service of ethical understanding. Most sections of this
work open with literary pieces.
This work is divided into four parts:
I. The Nature of Morality. The central problems: What is moral-
ity? What is it for? What is its scope and force? I use Golding’s Lord
of the Flies, Melville’s Billy Budd, and Styron’s Sophie’s Choice to
highlight central themes, followed by philosophical essays that delve
more systematically into the nature of morality, the nature of good
and evil, and, relating to the scope and force of morality, moral
relativism and objectivism. One might wonder why the latter issue
comes in so soon, but there may be no issue more in dispute among
young people today than this topic. Hence its prominence.
II. Moral Theories. The three classic ethical theories: utilitarian-
ism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. Following the chapter
on virtue ethics, I have included essays on particular virtues and
vices, such as Tolstoy’s “How Much Land Does a Man Need?” and
“Where Love Is, There Is God,” Kant’s “Jealousy, Malice, and Ingrat-
itude,” Helen Keller’s “Three Days to See,” and Vice Admiral Stock-
dale’s “The World of Epictetus.”
III. Moral Issues. Why be moral? What is the meaning of life?
What is important about freedom, autonomy, and self-respect? I have
included Plato’s classic discussion of “The Ring of Gyges,” James
Rachels’ exposition of ethical egoism, followed by my critique of eth-
ical egoism, and writings by Epicurus, Epictetus, Camus, Frank’, Bud-
dha, Nozick, Sartre, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Thomas Hill.
N. Applied Ethics. Contemporary issues such as sex, love, and
marriage; abortion; substance abuse; animal rights; and the envi-
ronment. I have chosen issues that relate primarily to personal,
rather than social, morality.
Preface xv
There are fifteen chapters and eighty-six articles in all. Short intro-
ductions open each part and chapter. Each reading is introduced
with an abstract and most essays conclude with questions for fur-
ther reflection.
Many people have helped with this project. Robert Miller, Phi-
losophy Editor at Oxford University Press, first proposed the idea
of this anthology and gave enormous support to it. My colleagues
in the English Department (an umbrella department for philosophy
at West Pointwe have seventeen philosophers in the English
Department, which must be a recordplus a lot of English faculty
who are addictive philosophers). This book is dedicated to all the
members of my department, who are as collegial, honorable, and
unpretentious colleagues as any I have had the pleasure of work-
ing with. Captain Jowell Parks and Lieutenant Colonels Janice Hud-
ley, Mike Owens, Al Bishop, and Mike Burke all made excellent
suggestions along the way. Colonel Peter Stromberg, our head, has
supported my work with wonderful generosity. Mylan Engel con-
tributed an original essay on vegetarianism for this volume. Robert
Audi, Margarita Levin, Robert van Wyk, Bonnie Steinbock, and sev-
eral anonymous reviewers offered good advice, as did my wife,
Trudy, who has been my deepest friend and inspiration for over
thirty years.
United States Military Academy
L. P. P.
West Point, N.Y.
January 1999
The Moral Life
Introduction
On the Nature of Morality
Morality is about good and evil, and right and wrong action. What
exactly are these? It is not always easy to say. Various religions and
philosophies differ. What is the good? Religious people identify it
with God, the source of all being and value. Plato thought the good
was a transcendent, indefinable mystery, the source of all being and
value. It is the absolute truth, higher even than God and discover-
able by reason and intuition. Plato’s follower, the Cambridge philoso-
pher G. E. Moore, modified Plato’s formula, omitting the transcen-
dent dimension. The good, he thought, was a nonnatural, indefinable
property like the color yellow. It was not the source of all reality,
only of morality and aesthetic reality. On the other hand, Jeremy Ben-
tham (chapter 4), William James, and Richard Taylor (chapter 2) deny
there is anything mysterious or transcendent about goodness. They
hold that the good is a definable, natural property. It refers to pleas-
ure or the object of desiregood is a functional term which refers to
the satisfaction of our desires, the pleasure we feel when satisfied.
Variations on this basic hedonism appear in the literature; the human
good for Mill consists not just in any kind of pleasure but in certain
qualities of pleasurea deep sense of well-being or happiness
spread over a lifetime, not necessarily a life of ecstatic rapture, “but
moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory
pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of
the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the
whole, not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.” 1
1John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863, chapter 2). Mill elaborates on his
functional hedonism: “Happiness is a life in which exist free action (includ-
2 Introduction
For Nietzsche (chapter 2) goodness has nothing to do with pleasure
or happiness (“Only the Englishman wants that”) but power, the
sense of dominating, of being in control, of being the alpha male in
the pack. Goodness derives from the will to power that we all deeply
crave. As such it is hierarchical and inegalitarian. But the envious
mediocre masses detest this natural good, and so are determined to
crush it. Morality, according to Nietzsche, is the herd’s attempt to
institutionalize mediocrity and protect the sheep from the more
excellent wolves. The priests, both religious and secular moralizers,
invent the soft moral virtues (pity, patience, peace, kindness, for-
giveness, and tolerance) in order to protect themselves from their
betters. Helping the worst off, redeeming the worthless, forgiving the
criminal, maintaining the lives of sick bodies and diseased souls
the criminals, the stupid, and the mediocre. The ideas of good and
evil must be understood in the clash between the superior overmen,
and the priests who represent the masses. Right and wrong action,
then, become a kind of politically correct ideology which, ironically,
proves the Nietzschean point of the will to power. For the moralists
invent good and evil in order to empower themselves and their clien-
tele against their superior enemy.
Where does the truth lie in these matters? One thing everyone
engaged in the debate recognizes: morality is both personal and
social It is personal in that it has to do with how we should live
our lives, what we should strive to become. It is social in that it
recognizes that we are not hermits or gods, independent beings
with no need for each other. We are centers of conscious striving,
desire, who have wills of our own but have to adjust the pursuit
of our goals in the light of other people’s desires and interests. How
to reconcile and adjust these twin forces, the personal and the social,
is the central domain of ethics. It is the central concern of this
anthology. Many works of ethics emphasize the broader areas of
social policy or social ethics: just-war theory, economic relations,
punishment, political arrangements, and institutional justice. There
is a place for that. But what I want us to focus on in this work is
the more personal dimension of ethics: its raison d’etre, its funda-
ing meaningful work), loving relations, and moral character, and in which
the individual is not plagued by guilt and anxiety but is blessed with peace
and satisfaction.”
Introduction 3
mental purposes. We want to build from the ground up, for unless
we get our foundations firmly laid, our structure will be in danger
of capsizing. We will first study the nature of morality, beginning
with a sizable selection from William Golding’s moral allegory, Lord
of the Flies. After a commentary, we will examine the philosophi-
cal analogue to Golding’s work, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, writ-
ten three hundred years earlier. After this we raise one of the most
crucial questions about morality: is it universally valid or only rel-
ative to individual choice or one’s culture?
In Part II we progress to the three classic moral theories: utili-
tarianism, which aims at maximizing good consequences, usually
defined in terms of pleasure or happiness; deontological ethics,
which focuses on the individual act (its inherent rightness or wrong-
ness) and the individual (his or her inherent dignity or value); and
virtue ethics, which focuses on character, the kind of qualities we
should inculcate, the kind of people we should become. But all of
these theories recognize the role of virtue and vicemorally sig-
nificant character traits. So in the fourth chapter of Part II we exam-
ine several classic virtues and vices.
In Part III we consider theoretical issues that are implicit in our
study of the nature of morality and moral theories, enlarging on
what was said earlier. If the first two parts constituted the founda-
tions and formal structure of moral theory, Part III deals with the
materials in our building. First we examine the idea of the self in
relation to others. Sometimes we can flout moral rules when it is
in our perceived interest to do so. Should we do so? Why should
we be moral whenever we can enhance personal gain by disre-
garding morality’s requirements? This problem is related to the sec-
ondwhat really is important about life, what, if anything, gives it
meaning? Or is it merely “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing”? Here we look at various worldviews about
the nature and destiny of humanity: Epicureanism, Stoicism, The-
ism, Buddhism, Existentialism, and others. In chapter 10 we exam-
ine the importance of freedom and autonomy.
Finally, in Part IV we examine seven practical moral issues. Con-
tinuing our metaphor of the house, these constitute the inner dynam-
ics, the plumbing, electricity, and furniture. In chapter 11 we exam-
ine the meaning of human sexuality in relation to love and marriage.
What does morality permit and forbid? Why is adultery wrong? Is
monogamous marriage really a moral good? Should we need
4 Introduction
licenses to have children? Chapter 12 analyzes the difficult problem
of abortion. In chapter 13 we consider the use and abuse of drugs
and alcohol. Chapter 14 deals with our duties to animals and takes
up the issue of vegetarianism. Chapter 15 considers our duty to the
environment.
I have generally included readings which take opposing stands
on the issues at hand, though sometimes I have simply included a
reading to stimulate thinking, say on LaFollette’s claim that the gov-
ernment should require people to obtain a license to have children
or Engel’s claim that moral people already hold beliefs that com-
mit them to being vegetarians. The main purpose of this work is
to help you think through the difficult and exciting personal dimen-
sions of what morality is about. Hence the use of literature to sup-
plement philosophical analysis.
Literature particularizes general problems, brings them home to
us, enlivening the imagination so that we see and feel nuances that
are vital to resolving difficult moral issues, possibilities that we might
not have considered in our abstract thinking about moral dilem-
mas. But it is no substitute for philosophical analysis, so while many
chapters begin with a literary work, the philosophical essays are
where most of the necessary argument takes place.
Part I
The Nature
of Morality
Good and Evil
In this part of our work we consider three fundamental questions
relating to morality: What is the purpose of morality? What are good
and evil? Is morality essentially relative or are there objective moral
truths? We begin each chapter with a literary selection and then go
on to provide a philosophical analysis. Let us look briefly at the
first of these questions.
What is the purpose of morality? What is morality for? It seems to
have many purposes. These include enabling us to reach our goals
in socially acceptable ways, enabling us to resolve conflicts of inter-
ests fairly, developing certain kinds of positive character, promoting
human happiness, enabling society to survive. You can probably
think of others. But just as a picture is worth a thousand words, a
good story may do more to illuminate the purpose of morality than
a thousand disquisitions on the subject. So we begin our book with
a sizable selection from William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a mod-
ern allegory on the nature and purpose of morality. A group of British
private school boys are marooned on an island; detached from the
constraints of civilization, they turn into savages. Whether or not
human nature is as depraved as Golding makes it out to be, the sig-
nificance of the book lies in the fact that it illuminates the need for
and purpose of ethical codes. After Golding’s novel, I give an analy-
sis on its meaning for our understanding of morality. This is followed
by a selection from Thomas Hobbes’s classic work Leviathan (1651),
6 The Nature of Morality
which, in seventeenth-century prose, poignantly sets forth a similar
message to Golding’s.
These three chapters center on the foundational problems of
moral philosophy. It is imperative that we think clearly about them
before we tackle normative theories and applied ethics. Let us turn
now to one of the great moral allegories of our time, William Gold-
ing’s Lord of the Flies.
CHAPTER 1
What Is the Purpose
of Morality?
Lord of the Flies
A Moral Allegory
WILLIAM GOLDING
William Golding is considered one of the most profoundly
insightful writers of our age. His works explore the human
condition and the need for moral consciousness. In this
work, published in 1954, Golding describes a situation in
which the veneer of civilization is stripped away from chil-
dren and a primordial evil emerges out of the depths of
the human heart.
An indeterminate number of schoolboys, ranging in age
from six to twelve, are cast adrift on an uninhabited island
in the Pacific, after being evacuated from England during the
next world war. They are forced to create their own social
system. All begins well, as Ralph is democratically chosen
leader of the group and appropriate rules are agreed upon:
keep the fire going, use proper sanitation, obey proper
authority and orderly procedures in the assembly. Bereft of
modem technology, they must reinvent simple tools or use
tools for innovative purposes: eyeglasses to focus the sun’s
light to start a fire, sticks for spears. They construct shelters
and build a fire on the top of the mountain in order to sig-
nal their presence to passing ships. They miss simple con-
veniences: scissors to cut their long, knotty hair, tooth-
brushes, sanitary facilities, and clothes.
For a while the constraints of civilized society prevent total
chaos. While the youngest children, “littluns,” are frightened
and homesick, the older boys entertain them. They seem
ready to make the best out of their fate, and recognize the
necessity of substantive and procedural rules. Only he who
has the white conch, the symbol of authority, may speak
at an assembly, and the democratically chosen leader is in-
vested with limited powers. Even the sadistic Roger, while
taunting little Henry by throwing stones near him, manages
to keep the stones from harming the child.
From Lord of the Flies by William Gerald Golding. Copyright 1954 by
William Gerald Golding, renewed 1982. Used by permission of Faber and
Faber and Coward-McCann, Inc., a division of Penguin Putnam Inc.
8
Golding/Lord of the Flies 9
Here, invisible yet strong, was the taboo of the old life.
Round the squatting child was the protection of parents and
school and policemen and the law. Roger’s arm was con-
ditioned by a civilization that knew nothing of him and was
in ruins. (p. 78)
After some initial euphoria at being liberated from the
adult world of constraints into an exciting world of fun in
the sun, the children come up against the usual banes of
social existence: filth, competition for power and status, neg-
lect of social responsibility, failure of public policy, and esca-
lating violence. Two boys, Ralph, the son of a naval officer,
and Jack, the head choirboy, vie for leadership and a bitter
rivalry emerges between them. As a compromise, a division
of labor ensues in which Jack’s choirboy hunters refuse to
help Ralph and a few others in constructing shelters. Piggy,
the bespectacled asthmatic, acts as the wise and rational
counselor, and Simon, an epileptic, is portrayed as possess-
ing special spiritual insight, but these qualities, rationality
and spirituality, are tested by the Lord of the Flies. Free-
loading soon becomes a common phenomenon as the ma-
jority of children leave their tasks to play on the beach. San-
itation becomes a problem, as the diarrheal children defecate
all over the beach. Neglect of the fire causes it to burn out,
which, in turn, results in failure to be rescued by a passing
ship. We enter the novel as Jack returns with his choirboy
hunters, having slain their first pig, only to be reprimanded
by Ralph for not tending the fire.
The hunters were more silent now, but at this they buzzed again.
Ralph flung back his hair. One arm pointed at the empty horizon.
His voice was loud and savage, and struck them into silence.
“There was a ship.”
Jack, faced at once with too many awful implications, ducked
away from them. He laid a hand on the pig and drew his knife.
Ralph brought his arm down, fist clenched, and his voice shook.
“There was a ship. Out there. You said you’d keep the fire going
and you let it out!” He took a step towards Jack who turned and
faced him.
10 What Is the Purpose of Morality?
“They might have seen us. We might have gone home”
This was too bitter for Piggy, who forgot his timidity in the agony
of his loss. He began to cry out, shrilly:
“You and your blood, Jack Merridew! You and your hunting! We
might have gone home
Ralph pushed Piggy on one side.
“I was chief; and you were going to do what I said. You talk.
But you can’t even build hutsthen you go off hunting and let out
the fire”
He turned away, silent for a moment. Then his voice came again
on a peak of feeling.
“There was a ship”
One of the smaller hunters began to wail. The dismal truth was
filtering through to everybody. Jack went very red as he hacked
and pulled at the pig.
“The job was too much. We needed everyone.”
Ralph turned.
“You could have had everyone when the shelters were finished.
But you had to hunt”
“We needed meat.”
Jack stood up as he said this, the bloodied knife in his hand.
The two boys faced each other. There was the brilliant world of
hunting, tactics, fierce exhilaration, skill; and there was the world
of longing and baffled common-sense. Jac
