Andrew McCarthy
March 24, 2012
English 150
Portfolio Essay
Cormac McCarthy’s The Road is set in a post-apocalyptical world in which an unnamed
man and son desperately struggle for daily survival. Within this world all that remains is fire and
ash, as all of the rich natural resources this world once had are no more. Due to the loss of these
natural resources, mankind has succumbed to cannibalism in order to further sustain life, making
the theme of morality a prominent aspect throughout the novel. Thus, the man and the boy must
create and live by a moral code within a world where morality seems nonexistent. However, this
moral code cannot be reduced to the understanding that “the bad guys” are cannibals and “the
good guys” are not. Instead, there are in fact several other pillars that influence this code. These
pillars are observed in Erik J. Wielenburg’s, “God, Morality, and Meaning in Cormac
McCarthy’s The Road” in which Wielenburg suggests that the moral code established by the
man is based on six factors: Do not eat others, do not steal, do not lie, keep your promises, help
others, and never give up (Wielenburg 4). Essentially, the man is successful in establishing this
moral code and further investing this code within his son. However, the man is ultimately unable
to uphold these moral standards due to the loss of his wife, his mistrust for others, and the desire
to protect of his son.
One of the most significant reasons as to why the man is unable to uphold the moral
standards that he has invested within his son is due to the loss of his wife. Early within the novel,
we come to understand that the man’s wife had chosen to commit suicide due to the fact that she
could not live with the thought of “the truth” that, “sooner or later they will catch us and they
will kill us. They will rape me. They’ll rape him. They are going to rape us and eat us and you
won’t face it. You’d rather wait for it to happen” (McCarthy 50). The man’s wife feels that it’s
ultimately pointless to continue on because sooner or later they will be captured by the cannibals.
This truth essentially challenges the man’s ability to uphold the morals that he has established, as
he battles with the thought of whether or not his wife was right. For instance, on page 68 the man
echoes his wife: “A single round left in the revolver. You will not face the truth. You will not.”
As we can see, the man not only draws upon this notion of the truth, but he further refers to this
notion as “the truth.” It seems inevitable that the man believes that there is in fact some validity
in his wife’s actions, by continuing to refer to this notion as “the truth.” Another instance in
which this notion of “the truth” is depicted as challenging the protagonist’s moral code, occurs as
the man again draws upon a memory of his wife: “She was right. There was no argument. The
hundreds of nights they’d sat up debating the pros and cons of self-destruction with the
earnestness of philosophers chained to madhouse walls” (McCarthy 58). Here we learn that the
man he in fact participated in these deliberations, weighing both the pros and cons of suicide.
With this in mind, it’s impossible for the man to uphold the moral never give up, because it’s
clear that he still battles with whether or not his wife’s decision to commit suicide was
justifiable. Further, the man participated, with his wife, in compiling reasons pro-suicide, which
leads us to believe that a part of him can in fact justify the idea of suicide.
The man’s mistrust for humans represents an even more telling example of his difficulties
when it come to the moral code that he has established; most notably helping others. It seems as
though this mistrust is based on two factors: One, the man has seen the atrocities that humans are
capable of, and two helping others means the man will have to look after others, which equates
to less resources and a higher chance that he and his son will die. Throughout the novel the man
has witnessed the absolute atrocities that mankind has succumbed to in order to further sustain
life. One of the two most explicit illustrations of these atrocities occurs as the man and boy come
across a baby that has been decapitated and gutted to serve as a meal for the cannibals
(McCarthy 198). This image clearly brings to light just how far morality has devolved and
further illustrates the atrocities humans are capable of. Another horrific image occurs as the man
and boy come across a mansion while travelling through the woods. The man and boy decide to
go into the house in hopes that they will find food; however, upon entering, the man comes to the
realization that this mansion is actually a breeding-ground for the cannibals; “Huddled against
the black wall were naked people, male and female, all trying to hide, shielding their faces with
their hands. On the mattress lay a man with his legs gone to the hip and the stumps of them
blackened and burnt” (McCarthy 110). This scene yet again depicts the atrocities that the man
and the boy have had to witness. These atrocities hamper the protagonist’s ability to trust others
and prevent him from upholding the moral code of helping others. The man ultimately feels that
after witnessing these atrocities, he has no reason to trust anyone besides himself and his son.
This mistrust also stems from the belief that helping others will deplete their resources
and lead to death. This notion is portrayed as the protagonist encounters a man who has fallen
victim to being struck by lightning. Although this man is clearly about to die, the boy insists that
they help. The father responds by telling his son, “We have no way to help him. I’m sorry for
what has happened to him but we cannot fix it” (McCarthy 50) and continues by detailing, “He’s
going to die. We can’t share what we have or we’ll die too” (McCarthy 52). As we can observe,
the man clearly feels that trusting others and sharing their resources will lead to death.
Lastly protecting the boy is yet another key element as to why the man is unable to
uphold the moral code that Wielenburg spells out. This is most notably seen in two instances.
The first occurs as the man and boy are struggling to make their way through the mountains. The
boy at one point stops and asks his father if he thinks they are going to die. The man and boy
proceed to have an argument about life and death, which comes to a close as the man asks the
boy if he thinks he would lie to him about death. The boy responds that he in fact does think the
man would, and the man counters by saying, “Okay. I might. But we’re not dying” (McCarthy
101). As illustrated, the man clearly states that he would in fact violate the moral code, do not lie,
by telling his son that he would in fact lie to him about death. With this in mind, we must come
to realize that this moral code is ultimately subservient to the best interests of the boy. The man
would rather lie his son about death and violate a moral code than tell his son the truth, which
could potentially lead the boy to lose all hope of survival.
Another way in which the protection of the protagonist’s son nullifying this moral code is
seen as the man and boy come close to being captured by the cannibals. After a close encounter
with the cannibals, the man and boy flee to the woods in order to hide. The man quickly begins
to struggle with the idea of whether or not should kill his son: “Could you crush that beloved
skull with a rock? Is there such a being within you of which you know nothing? Can there be?”
(McCarthy 114). The man ultimately has to come to terms with whether or not he can crush his
son’s skull if the cannibals find them. Again in the best interest of his son the man would rather
disregard aspects of the moral code by killing his son and giving him an expedient, rather than a
torturous death, in which he would most likely be raped and eaten by the cannibals.
As we can see, Erik J. Wielenburg’s notion of the man’s moral code consisting of do not
eat others, do not steal, do not lie, keep promises, help others, and never give up has inherent
flaws. Although the man is successful in establishing this moral code, and further investing these
virtues within his son, he is ultimately unable to uphold all of these moral standards. One of the
most prominent reasons as to why the man is unable to uphold these standards is due to the loss
of his wife. The loss of his wife subconsciously brings about his inability to depict whether or
not his wife made the right decision in committing suicide, which violates the moral of never
give up. The man is further unsuccessful in maintaining this moral code due to his mistrust for
others. Through the atrocities that he has witnessed, along with the rationale that helping others
will lead to death, the man does not trust others with the survival of himself and his son. Lastly,
the protection of his son ultimately nullifies his ability to uphold these morals, as the best
interests of the man’s son are more important that any moral established.
Works Cited
Schaub, TH. "Secular scripture and Cormac McCarthy's The Road." Renascence. (2009):
61.153. Online.
Rambo, Shelly L. "Beyond Redemption?: Reading Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' After
the End of the World." Studies in the Literary Imagination 41.2 (2008): 99+. Academic OneFile.
Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Wielenberg, Erik J. "God, Morality, and Meaning in Cormac McCarthy's The Road"