No Country for Old Men discussion

Mike, I'm afraid I don't agree. I don't think that McCarthy is particularly concerned about what is actually happening along the border, at least not in his fiction. If you read his books, at least the ones set in the Southwest, south of the border is where bad things happen to the Gringos who venture down there. It is his metaphorical Hell. Take "Cities of the Plain". John Grady is cut up and killed by a pimp in Juarez. In "Blood Meridian", the trip into Mexico is literally a journey through Hell. Likewise, in "All The Pretty Horses", John Grady Cole and Lacey Rawlins find nothing but trouble when they travel down to Mexico. I don't think this is a comment on Mexico or Mexicans. I think it is just a metaphorical device.

Chuck wrote: "Mike, I'm afraid I don't agree. I don't think that McCarthy is particularly concerned about what is actually happening along the border, at least not in his fiction. If you read his books, at least..."

Chuck, I think we do agree. Take your example of John Grady. Yes, he does get cut up and dies. But consider this, just what the hell does Grady think he is doing down there falling in love with a puta and trying to abscond with her back to Gringolandia. IRL, this is indeed business as usual and I think McCarthy reports that very well. Similar theme in "All the Pretty Horses." It's not that "bad things happen to Gringos who go down there," it's that bad things happen to people who go down there looking for trouble. This is exactly what John Grady did. I've seen this numerous times in real life. There are a group of us you can find at ADVrider.com who ride to Mexico often. The John Grady types often come home with their tails between their legs because they went looking for "trouble," which usually means chasing skirts and then getting their butts whipped or worse. Believe it or not, manners are still important in Latin America. Those who understand that they are in a whole n'other country, OTOH, have a very enjoyable experience down there without incident. Not that McCarthy is trying to convey some deeper meaning, but if he is, then it would be not to take your frame of reference with you when you travel to foreign lands. And maybe don't go chasing skirts unless you understand the game down there. Old Arab proverb, "never enter another man's oasis unless invited or well armed." So my advice is not to chase skirts down there unless you are prepared to defend yourself for whatever situation you create for yourself. But more important is not to take your frame of reference with you went entering foreign lands. Anywhere.

There are plenty of Gringos who have a great time in the real Mexico, as opposed to "resort" Mexico. However, this would make for a boring adventure novel. Que no?

All in all, I'm glad I read "No Country..." Yes, it was puzzling. Yes, it was violent. But, here's a story of the Vietnam era sheriff and his WWII uncle, the sheriff's loving wife, in a place of horrible violence and mean people. I still think that when the murderer offers to flip the coin before killing the Moss's wife, and she tries to talk him out of it, tells us about how we go about making our world.

Like I say, "all in all."

Loved the book even if it was VERY dark. The film was excellent. We saw it as soon as it came out and it still ranks at the top of the list of favourites. If you thought this was dark try The Road.

Laura wrote: "Can you explain what it is that I haven't gotten? Or are you (like McCarthy) too wrapped up in being laconic to tell me anything?" Two quick comments on your opinions - and I know you wrote them some time ago - but one, you were perhaps not moved, or changed, but many others have been, enough that a very powerful movie was made of this novel. Secondly, you must've hated James Elroy's American Tabloid trilogy! So you opinion is valid, it just isn't relevant to everyone, because not everyone has had a middle class, liberal arts education in America. And that's okay, too. :^)

Boy, Geoffrey, you must have had a bad day! No one is convinced by your arguments when you insult others just because they have a different opinion from you. You need to take a long nap or see your psychiatrist for more meds.

Since reading "No Country..." several books back, I'm still impressed by both McCarthy's stylistic writing as well as his plot. I won't go on gushing about his work any more than other authors' works but this is surely the kind of writing and expression that only comes along every so often and is very fulfilling to read.

I liked the book so much that I read it at least three times. I'm a fan of minimalism in any art form, and McCarthy's writing style is, if nothing else, minimalist. I find that in one short paragraph he can bring a moment alive where it takes other authors a page or more to even approach the same. Less is more, as far as I'm concerned, and here's why: The more the reader is required to participate in the storytelling process by filling in that which is only implied, the more alive the story becomes because as co-creator the reader is tricked into deeply internalizing it, making it no longer a story, but an experience that the reader gets to witness first-hand. I don't read McCarthy for the story, I read for the experience. That's the magic of McCarthy, as far as I'm concerned.

Jeff wrote: "I liked the book so much that I read it at least three times. I'm a fan of minimalism in any art form, and McCarthy's writing style is, if nothing else, minimalist. I find that in one short paragr..."

Funny, I had the opposite reaction, emperor's new clothes. ultimately it was just a story and the profundities it seemed to be suggesting about human beings, really never added up to anything outside of the story itself that I could take away with me and think about long after finishing the book. But this is just ultimately the different tastes and approaches we have as readers and all responses are equally legitimate.

Marc, et al, I wonder if the difference comes down to whether a person is right-brained or left-brained. I come from a family of visual thinkers and professional artists, myself included. I appreciate McCarthy because regardless of whether or not there's a "take-away" from his stories I get to vividly experience them as if happening real-time. Likewise, I watch movies mostly to experience them. Last weekend I watched Gravity in 3D and loved it, even though I was aware of factual stretches, and some of the them big ones.

Perhaps left-brained analytical types could care less about whether or not they could see, feel, smell, taste, and hear what was happening while reading "No Country for Old Men" when it leaves them with no multi-faceted cognitive take-away to chew on for months afterward. As you touched on, Marc, to each his own. It’s good the world is made of both types of thinkers and all variations in between.

Absolutely Jeff. I have a personal thing that literature is literature, film is film and theatre is theatre. That is I think books should be written within the unique artistic parameters of the literary craft and not adapted for films as blights the current cinema output. The corollary of this is that authors should not be writing novels as if with a film adaptation in mind. Now I'm not saying Mccarthy was doing this for one moment, he is far too skillful a writer, but I tend not to favour books that rely on a visual language without other facets being present as well. The very worst books to me are those where the main character appears to have a camera affixed to his head...

Books ought to tell stories in a very different way to film and when authors blur the two, I tend not to be interested. But I may be utterly on my own in that.

Laura wrote: "I have twenty pages to go and I'm still trying to figure out what this book has to say except that we live in a violent world where the good guy abd the bad guy don't always get to face off in the ..."

I loved this book. It's one of my favorite McCarthy books, though I love his style altogether. I like the fact that this story doesn't follow the typical cookie cutter plot. It got my emotions going. I was scared for the protagonist. After i finished it, I couldn't stop thinking about it.

It must feel pretty good to be such pompous literary critics. Each trying to be more intellectually cynical than the last. They must have written some great works of their own. I'm sure their morning mirror only reflects perfection.

James Lee Burke is better by far!!

I may be wrong in my interpretation of Cormac Mccarthy, but I think what is often mis-read in his work is his entirely moral view. He is not expressing a pessimistic or fatalistic view in his work but a moral or at least classically romantic perspective. We are so used to the Hollywood ending either sentimental or now as in much horror the senseless, evil lurks/boogieman scenario that we forget the real evil that must be defied despite the consequences. The Girlfriend is the real embodiment of this type of good. She confronts evil with the truth of its own flawed delusional logic. Without conjecturing about an afterlife or some reward for good it is this existential facing of evil that matters despite the full knowledge of ones own absolute peril, a faith without worldly hope. I know that this is maybe an over simplification, there is also the modern context of a corrupt corporate America. I think his goriest work, The Road, is actually the most sentimental, but maybe I am remembering the film more than the book.

Adam wrote: "Some quick thoughts on the book:

You can't go to war without G-d." So says Cormac McCarthy. The concept that G-d has a vested interest in war is as ancient as war itself. Fore did G-d not say to ..." Wow, Can I get your autograph?

I am in love with writing that can knock me back on my ass. There might be better storytellers out there, but NCFOM, Blood Meridian, The Road knocked me back on my ass. It hurt to read those novels, but art is supposed to hurt.

Cormack McCarthy does have a strain of brutality in all of his books, but this one went under the bottom.

I absolutely loved "All The Pretty Horses" and "The Road" was one of the more powerful post apocalyptic novels I've read in awhile. However, NCFOM didn't do much except infuriate me. The book started out strong, but Llewelyn's death was so abrupt and poorly handled that I actually went back and did a page check to see if a chapter or 2 were missing. Not only was it abrupt, but it didn't make any sense and left a huge plot hole. How was he even tracked so quickly to that particular motel? There was no indication that he was being followed, yet of all the 100's and 100's of motels in a 100 mile radius, someone was able to pick the exact one he was staying at.

This isn't my favorite of McCarthy's, but calling the writing 'shit' is pretty limiting and narrow-minded.

McCarthy writes in a way that people actually do speak--with a cadence and a rhythm that you'll hear if you listen to people. That's kind of the point; to present something rhythmic and poetic.

He's clearly been heavily influenced by Joyce; the repetition of non-essential words, which forms the cadence and rhythm of many of his sentences is one of the clearest lines of descent.

I'm sorry that you would call his prose 'shit'; I find it depressing that an English teacher would do so, and would limit their imagination to the AP stylebook or whatever constitutes 'proper' punctuation in your mind.

Chuck wrote: "Mike, I'm afraid I don't agree. I don't think that McCarthy is particularly concerned about what is actually happening along the border, at least not in his fiction. If you read his books, at least..."

Chuck, south of the border is also where the poorest and least take in and take care of our young American protagonists. They feed them, bathe them, clothe them, and shelter them.

McCarthy is making a point about generosity of the spirit, here. McCarthy was raised Catholic, and the influences show; while he's not a practicing Catholic, it is hard to not see the echoes of Graham Greene's Mexico in McCarthy's writing.

It is McCarthy's strawman against Nietzsche.

What if we lived in a universe without God? Where would we get our moral compass? We would all end up as Anton Chigurh, Übermensch née sociopath. So says McCarthy.

I read it alongside C.S. Lewis' 'The Abolition of Man' I think they pair well together. We're moving into a postmodern era where the moral law is being 'debunked' and a new kind of man is emerging. The dangers of postmodernism Lewis warns about are put on display in McCarthy's book - the old men who haven't debunked morality are being replaced by a disturbing kind of new man with no concern for moral absolutes.

There have always been people who operated without concern for religiously-based morals, I believe. I would guess McCarthy is intelligent and learned enough to realize this as well.
What is the outcome? You either get away with it or must deal with the results of your im-/a-morality as delivered by either lawmen or those you have offended (e.g. other drug dealers). Without moral proscription against revenge, you're always a target.

J. wrote: "There have always been people who operated without concern for religiously-based morals, I believe. I would guess McCarthy is intelligent and learned enough to realize this as well.
What is the ou..."
So without religion there is no morality? Religiously-based morals are the only alternative to amorality? Atheists are sociopaths?

Richard: Can you point to a historical model of morality, something that has a lineage, that isn't derived in part from a religious tradition?

David wrote: "Richard: Can you point to a historical model of morality, something that has a lineage, that isn't derived in part from a religious tradition?"

I'm not sure being derived in part from religious traditions is the same as being dependent on religion. Most math has its roots in some superstition, for example.

At any rate here short list of secular ethical systems:

The Bill of Rights.
The Girl Scout Law.
United States Naval Academy honor concept.
West Point Honor Code.
US military codes of conduct.

Thank you for sharing; I appreciate the diversity of your examples :)

Richard wrote: "So without religion there is no morality? Religiously-based morals are the only alternative to amorality? Atheists are sociopaths? "
I'm not sure I said any of those things. Did I imply them?
Anyway, I don't think Sugar is a Superman. I think he's a socio-/psycho-path. I don't think all atheists are likewise.
I do think belief in an ostensibly absolute, eternal, divinely mandated/inspired morality is quite different from a sort of ever-evolving utilitarian, humanistic morality. Even if they (at times) proclaim the same rules, they would be viewed differently by their adherents. Wouldn't you agree?

J. wrote: "Did I imply them?"

You said the outcome of "people who operated without concern for religiously-based morals" was "You either get away with it or must deal with the results of your im-/a-morality..."

Anyway, I'm not arguing Chigurh is an Übermensch, rather a strawman presenting an incorrect view of Nietzschean/existentialist/postmodern thought.

Richard wrote: You said the outcome of "people who operated without concern for religiously-based morals" was "You either get away with it or must deal with the results of your im-/..."
I just meant that any sort of retribution or damnation (that is to say, reasons not to do bad apart from simply not wanting to) as a natural result of moral failure must either come from God, etc. or from other people (or perhaps from the conscience, if one believes in it)(EDIT - and I do believe in conscience but don't claim to know its source).
Someone could posit a godless moral system of peer rewards for doing good without comparable punishments for doing bad, I suppose; in which case person-to-person retribution would likely still occur but would not be intrinsic to or supported by the system.

Richard wrote: "J. wrote: "There have always been people who operated without concern for religiously-based morals, I believe. I would guess McCarthy is intelligent and learned enough to realize this as well.
Wha..."

Seems I may have started something inadvertently. I will say that religion provides a very important foundation for morality and that this foundation is absolutely necessary to avoid the men of Hobbes, Darwin or Nietzsche taking the place of men of Plato, Aquinas or Kant. So religion is one option, utilitarianism is another option (though I think with more problems), Kant provides a very sound option which I think people of any metaphysical belief structure can get on board with. My point is that if we're going to say no to might is right we need morality that is binding and neither postmodern constructivism nor scientific realism will give us that.

I also don't think people would be as dismissive of religion if religion wasn't represented by its least rational elements and people took the time to read some medieval philosophy. But that's another story. My point is - when we embrace postmodernism we pave the way for Callicles being vindicated.

Interesting thread... I would love to know if the book had been written by a John Smith, would it have been published? would many people have read it? I found it boring, depressing, and not better than any kind of western story, like the John Wayne movies. The way CMC writes is kind of interesting, he is trying to recreate usual speech in a written page and why not? Languages evolve, maybe in 50 years "dont" will be a normal form instead of "don't". If you take the writing away, and watch the movie -then, I can't even guess what you find there. Guys want money, drugs get you money but they bring danger too. Guys get killed because of drugs and greed. All the western movies filmed in the 40s and 50s are not far -except that the drugs are replaced by gold, or by Indians. But the ideas are very similar, no? Of course, the difference is that watching a western is like a guilty pleasure, for those who like them. You know they are just series B movies, but you indulge yourself...
Here, what bothers me a lot is the idea of the Great American Writer. Is that all the US has to offer n literature? A lot of famous books are dark and controversial, but this one leads to nothing, nothing at all. No hope for anything, not even for redemption, as nothing makes sense. That CMC comes from a judeo-christian background or culture is obvious, but what s left is mostly the idea of daily hell, because there is no hope.
to Richard - I don't get your comment. Darwin and Hobbes were not atheists -and even Nietzsche is too fascinated by religion not to have some beliefs. The one who stated that without God everything is allowed was Dostoyevsky, no?

I just checked and realized that -thank God!- McCarthy is not very famous outside the US. I learned too that he wrote the scenario of the Counselor, a movie I could not watch because it bored me to death... And he is only said to be a possible Nobel prize on American sites. Let me hope the rest of the world has more common sense.
It is pure criticism of the American way of life and meaningless for most other people -like Updike in a way.

I like his books, but I'd be surprised if he got a Nobel. I'd imagine a lot of his lingo and thematic substance would be hard to translate/relate, diminishing his chances (if any) of getting a Nobel or being truly "world-renowned". (Not that you have to be popularly famous to get a Nobel.)

What does make sense? In the face of evil? In the face of death? Inner moral conviction. Individual integrity and character. Where do you find this in No Country for Old Men? The Girlfriend is the moral compass. In Blood Meridian it is similar. Death is inevitable. The triumph of evil in ones inner being is not.

Anne wrote:"to Richard - I don't get your comment. Darwin and Hobbes were not atheists -and even Nietzsche is too fascinated by religion not to have some beliefs."

I think you're missing some attributions in the comments. I never mentioned Darwin or Hobbes, and my whole point was Nietzche was *not* advocating amorality.

Anne wrote: " The one who stated that without God everything is allowed was Dostoyevsky, no?"

I'm sure a lot of people have written that, but in this case it was Cormac McCarthy. My comments argue against that position. i.e. I do not believe that morality is dependent on god, or God for that matter.

Anne wrote: "I just checked and realized that -thank God!- McCarthy is not very famous outside the US. I learned too that he wrote the scenario of the Counselor, a movie I could not watch because it bored me to..."

I doubt very much that McCarthy is up for a Nobel, but I think you do him a disservice in this comment where you suggest his writing can only appeal to Americans.

This isn't his only book, and he does deal with universal themes in a far less American-centric way in other novels. The Road, in particular, could be set in any country on Earth.

The Borderlands Trilogy could appeal to anyone anywhere as well; it's a beautiful elegy for a different time and way of life.

You may not be able to get into this book, it may bother you on a deep level, but literary prizes aren't awarded on the basis of entertainment.

Entertainment is a fine motive to push you to read a book, but please, don't let it be your only standard in assessing literature and artistic works. Thematic content, influences, and actual prose are also incredibly valid assessments.

I asked diverse European friends about CMC, and he is unknown. Of course, it can also mean my friends are illiterate but I would guess a 30 year old college graduate n the states would have heard of him. Not in Europe. If you keep on asking, some of the movies names will get a reaction, like "I've heard that before". It just means you can be famous in one part of the world and not in other ones.
It may mean too that the western theme does not appeal to other people than American ones, because it is part of their past.
I don't like what he writes about, the way he writes, the future he foresees, the portrait of humanity he gives us. I hope he does not influence other writers. And he is certainly not entertaining. And if you do not realize how American his western books are... maybe you are just caught in the system yourself -too much to see why you like him.
Actually, it does not matter. As long as some people like what he writes, he is right to keep on. I just asked myself a few questions and checked a bit, first on internet, and noticed that the French and English pages about him were totally different, then as I said, asked a few persons, and realized he is -so far- an American phenomenon.

Anne,

I didn't realize I was speaking to someone who knew the majority of readers in Europe! What a delight.

My point was that it *could* potentially appeal to others. While you are certainly free to hold and share a silly opinion ('McCarthy is not entertaining') I don't know that I need to entertain it when you present it as some objective information.

I'm not sure how you'd describe the great European success of The Power and the Glory, a novel about a Mexican priest struggling with alcoholism, sexual lust, and running from the law. It was quite Western, in that it dealt entirely and nearly solely with Mexican people living in Mexico, but, amazingly, the good people of England and France actually loved it.

If you truly think that French people are incapable of being interested in Western themes, and you think this after a robust examination of fact, then I'll defer to your expertise. I just find it odd that the French literary circles could adore a book about Mexico but not one about Texas.

I also find it odd that you think English readers wouldn't be interested in the West of America; after all, Vernon God Little won the Man Booker Prize!

Finally, my last bit of surprise, is that 600 Western movies were produced in Italy, in Italian, and enjoyed wide-spread release throughout Europe over a 20 year time period. Clearly, Europe was interested in Westerns and cowboys.

But, never let any of that deter you from your simplistic and reductive polemic against McCarthy. You, Anne, didn't enjoy him, so clearly he is a bad writer, who is not entertaining, and who will never appeal to anyone but Americans who love death and violence.

don't worry, I would not even think of knowing one tenth of the readers in any country of the world. It is just that when you ask US people about CMC they know of him, they have heard his name, etc. If you ask non US readers, he is unknown for most of them.
Westerns are, or have been loved in Europe as much as in the states, but as relaxing movies, fun movies, un-intellectual movies. The success of the Italian spaghetti westerns did not change it. Let us say that Europeans who may love westerns will not claim they are the greatest movies.
Anyway, it s quite possible that McCarthy gets to be world famous, with time. Who knows? I only said I do not enjoy his books and he is not that famous in Europe. Nothing else. He can be entertaining to a lot of people, just not to me.
As to Graham Greene, yes, his books were loved 70 years ago. Do young people still know him? not sure. Are literary tastes the same today as in the 40s? not sure.
About the pages in different languages, you can do a very interesting experience. Go to wikipedia and pick up something you like. CMC, for instance. Then click on the languages on the left side, and read the article in whatever language you want. I mange in French, German, Spanish and Italian. You will notice you are reading very different things, and it is amazing. About Vernon God Little - do it, and notice the few languages possible.
Anyway, to stop this silly argument, I don't have anything against McCarthy, except that I, personally, don't like what he writes... and that won't change.

Anne, a lot of us Americans don't like McCarthy's writings and that won't change either.

Anne: That's OK that you don't like him. Where I take issue though is when you turn it into a polemic and claim he's a nobody and will never achieve any literary significance.

It's fine that you don't like him; you are under no obligation to do so.

However, if you continually express sentiments that are incorrect, do not be surprised if others provide a rebuttal.

Your statements concern your impression of what he is saying; not what he is actually saying, and that's where I (and I presume others) take issue with you. Instead of accepting that others have read more into his works than you have, you keep re-posting what is essentially a screed that McCarthy foresees a horrible future and has a view of humanity that is basically vile.

Both of those statements are incorrect, in that McCarthy himself does not seem to hold them, and many literary critiques of his writing do not find them.

Instead of providing evidence for those controversial views, you simply keep saying, "Oh well Europe doesn't like him."

It's not a real argument; you're just sharing personal feelings & then trying to justify them. You aren't actually taking the text as it is, and as it's been widely interpreted, nor are you providing an actual counter-interpretation. That's fine! You can feel that way. Just stop trying to present it as an objective or logical argument.

A few comments:

First, I'd like to lend a voice of support to J. Robert re McCarthy's work. I think he's on the money. I definitely think there's a reason why several of McCarthy's villains (the judge, White, Chigurh, even Suttree to the extent that he is at war with himself, in a sense) are hyperintellectual. Think of what Ben Telfair says in The Stonemason: "Thinking's rare among all classes. But a laborer who thinks, well, his thought seems more likely to be tempered with humanity. He's more inclined to tolerance. He knows that what is valuable in life is life... I think [college professors are] more apt to just be dangerous. Marx never worked a day in his life... I think most people feel that books are dangerous and they're probably right." Any attempts by mankind to develop a purely secular morality have... Well, they've not ended too well. Even Dostoevsky knew that way back when.

Second, it's pretty ridiculous for anyone to say that McCarthy's books would only be relevant to Americans. Next people will be saying "Yeah, who gives a shit about Faulkner? He only wrote about rednecks in the South." As James Joyce wrote, "In the particular is contained the universal."

Third, it's also ludicrous to say that McCarthy is "unknown" outside the States. Most of the people that I know who have actually read McCarthy are European, whereas Americans usually only know No Country and The Road as works in their own right but have no idea who Cormac McCarthy is. Granted, my experience is also only anecdotal. This is not:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2009/11/19/...

A major Scottish literary award considers The Road among the best 6 of all recipients ever of that award over the last ninety-some-odd years? And a major British publication considers The Road the best novel in the English language of the last decade? And McCarthy's "unknown" outside of America? I don't think so.

Or how about the conference held last month at the University of Western Sydney on McCarthy's writings? Here's the program:

http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/p...

Just a quick glance at the list of speakers shows professors from universities in the US, Australia, England, Guam, Switzerland, Germany, France, Denmark, and Qatar. So... yeah. Totally a minor, regional writer, I guess.

Ed wrote: Any attempts by mankind to develop a purely secular morality have... Well, they've not ended too well.

Can you provide some concrete examples where the projects of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, G.E. Moore, Peter Singer et al have "not ended too well?"

I think a plain example of McCarthy's "Americanism" might be the sort of knee-jerk religiosity that we are seeing in this thread. McCarthy himself just paints a ridiculous portrait of humanism that we're all just supposed to accept. How come the world is not full of Chigurhs? Becuase he's a cartoon character from a Chick tract.

David, he is obviously a favorite writer of yours and that is fine. But you are the one trying to convince others about your feelings. I don't know what McCarthy thinks about humanity, its future or the world's future and I don't really care. You may find what you want in his books but please let people decide what they like or not.
My point -if there ever was one- was not to mean Europe does not like him or totally ignores him. It came from the surprise I had when I noticed how important he was in the USA, where he is considered as one of the most meaningful writers of the early 21st century, and my relief when I realized he is not that important in other parts of the world -probably because I was feeling ashamed of my ignorance.
About what CMC holds dear, you are lucky if you know, as he refuses to take a given position.
Thanks, Emily, it is nice to find people who feel the way I do.
Richard, I am sorry, I read the thread too fast, you were quoted by J. Robert, who wrote about Hobbes et al.

Richard,

First of all, Singer is a complete wackjob. I know several of his acolytes, animal rights protesters who tout him as the Messiah. They protest at my university. They threaten professors and graduate students. They're disgusting. I'm not even going to respond to him. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Or, in this case, "fruitcakes".

As for Mill: I honestly can't believe people take utilitarianist ethics seriously. It seems nothing more than a justification of harm to some by good to more.

As for Bentham and Moore: I'm familiar with some of their ideas. I'm fully unfamiliar with any social projects based on them. The fault may be mine. But I have no knowledge of them. And so it's hard to give "concrete examples" of such.

I have to say, Richard, I'm sympathetic to your point of view. You go on my bookshelves and click on my "top-shelf-books" and you will see there proudly displayed Atlas Shrugged. I'm not a "Randian" in any sense. But when I read that as a doe-eyed lad, it opened my mind to the very possibility of secular morality, which was revolutionary to me after being raised Catholic. And as much as I may have disagreed with her conclusions, that metapoint remained very important to me. As I moved on, looking for alternatives to her ideas, still within the realm of "secular morality", I came to other thinkers, namely Locke, Mill, and the existentialists (not the Christian flavor, of course). But after a point, I came to realize these all suffered from the same fatal flaw, videlicet, their nonbinding nature. Why would any poor, stupid person follow objectivist ethics? Why would anyone live according to some categorical imperative if a short, easy transgression had the potential to lead to great gains for himself? Most people to whom I've posed these questions answer "the government". This is fully unsatisfying, though, seeming a mere substitution of "the government" for "God". Where does morality come from? What authority codifies it? Enacts it? Enforces it? No wonder the Marxists outlawed faith: They wanted that same obeisance paid their artifice.

Which leaves me in a pretty pickle, it seems. As I'm not a believer. And this tension is a good deal of what I see in McCarthy's works and why they appeal so strongly to me. See All the Pretty Horses, the speech that Don Hector makes to John Grady:

"They went to France for their education. He and Gustavo. And others. All these young people. They all returned full of ideas. Full of ideas, and yet there seemed to be no agreement among them. How do you account for that? Their parents sent them for these ideas, no? And they went there and received them. Yet when they returned and opened their valises, so to speak, no two contained the same thing... They were in agreement on matters of fact. The names of people. Or buildings. The dates of certain events. But ideas... People of my generation are more cautious. I think we dont believe that people can be improved in their character by reason. That seems a very french idea."

Seems to me like Don Hector is talking about what Bentham, Mill, Moore, and Singer would say to each other.

Ed wrote: Why would anyone live according to some categorical imperative if a short, easy transgression had the potential to lead to great gains for himself?

Because the capacity of our actions to bring about appropriate results is obvious. We learn these things early (ehipassiko), and we learn that short easy transgressions have a potential for great losses as well as great gains. Ethical and moral behavior leads to a happier life (eudaimonia), for both religious people and non-believers.

It is the idea that we would do bad things if we could get away with them that leads to the unsatisfying God or Government or Kindergarten teacher.

Cormac McCarthy wrote: "They went to France for their education. He and Gustavo. And others. All these young people. They all returned full of ideas. Full of ideas, and yet there seemed to be no agreement among them. How do you account for that? Their parents sent them for these ideas, no? And they went there and received them. Yet when they returned and opened their valises, so to speak, no two contained the same thing... They were in agreement on matters of fact. The names of people. Or buildings. The dates of certain events. But ideas... People of my generation are more cautious. I think we dont believe that people can be improved in their character by reason. That seems a very french idea."

I guess we can add anti-intellectualism and xenophobia to the list of Americanisms. This guy is starting to look like a bad stereotype.

Yeah, except that "Ethical and moral behavior leads to a happier life (eudaimonia), for both religious people and non-believers" is at best a gross oversimplification of the way life is. There are all sorts of prisoners' dilemmas inherent in various secular moralities; cf. various "great man" theories, or even Brutus's murder of Caesar, e.g.

As for "I guess we can add anti-intellectualism and xenophobia to the list of Americanisms. This guy is starting to look like a bad stereotype": This is so pathetically mindless I won't deign to respond. I will, however, provide you with a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ref...

Pot? Meet kettle.