Morally ambiguous characterscharacters whose behavior discourages readers from identifying them

as purely evil or purely goodare at the heart of many works of literature. Choose a novel or play in
which a morally ambiguous character plays a pivotal role. Then write an essay in which you explain how
the character can be viewed as morally ambiguous and why his or her moral ambiguity is significant to
the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
In the novel, The Road, written by Cormac McCarthy, it is difficult to label characters and events
as explicitly good or bad. The same decision can be right in one situation and wrong in another. Morality
is one of the most subjective themes in any book, and it is especially vague in The Road. The variables
that caused the situation are the same ones that justify otherwise immoral acts. The father exemplifies
this vagueness through his actions and reactions in addition to his views on life and morals.
Because the father felt an obligation to keep his son alive, drastic measures had to be taken
when they ran out of food. They would frequently steal from houses, many of which were already
ransacked, and sacrifice their safety for a day with a seemingly unlimited food source. In addition, the
father would refuse to share any food or supplies with the few people they were in contact with, even
though the stranger might have been worse off. Although stealing is understood to be wrong, there is
no doubt as to the stealing that took place in the novel being morally justified. Because the father was
stealing to protect his son and not for supercilious reasons, it was okay that they were hurting others for
their gain. This same line of thinking is seen in dog-eat-dog scenarios, where one person must die and in
order to survive you must take from others. Adding even more Justifying the father's actions even more
is the idea that there is a line that, once crossed, leaves no opportunity for return. In an apocalyptic
setting like the one McCarthy engineered, cannibalism is sure to be rampant. However the images
created of a mother eating her own newborn child and groups of "slaves" kept only as food for the more
elite show a drastic contrast to simply stealing food that others did not want or could not find. This
example, when analyzed, gives us a more realistic (in this post-apocalyptic world) scale to base our
judgments on. Had the cannibals not existed, it would be easier simply to assume the stealing was a
horrible act and that there must be other ways of finding food. Adding in the nauseating descriptions of
torture and cannibalism creates a very real "wrong," and that wrong can be used to show the, if not
right, less wrong alternative. We assign the cannibals as bad and the father as good, when otherwise it
would be understood that stealing is wrong, therefore the father is bad.
The father's moral ambiguity is highlighted by his sense of protection toward his son. When
placed in a situation where strangers were being tortured and eaten, he chose to fled and attempt to
save his son rather than help those who were going to be murdered and eaten and potentially be killed
as well. While there is no right response to a situation like that, there is a right and wrong side to both
possible reactions. By fleeing, he left behind people who would undoubtedly suffer but he saved his
son's life. It is easy to look at the situation as an outsider and scorn the father's decision, because it
makes sense that the right thing to do would have been to stay and help. However looking deeper at the
event as a whole presents the father as an upstanding man who would do anything to save his son,
which is clearly a good quality.
By including a character who has such vague direction, McCormac created an atmosphere in his
novel that transcends a simple "right versus wrong" scenario. He causes his readers to think about what
is being presented and redefine previous understandings; people are not pure good or evil, nor do they
deserve judgment for decisions made under pressure. His undetermined directions stand as a statement
on how people are viewed and why situations can change a horrible action into a one that is justifiable.