Explore the full ebook collection and download it now at textbookfull.

com

Ethics theory and contemporary issues Ninth

Edition Fiala

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-theory-and-
contemporary-issues-ninth-edition-fiala/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Browse and Get More Ebook Downloads Instantly at https://textbookfull.com

Click here to visit textbookfull.com and download textbook now
 Your digital treasures (PDF, ePub, MOBI) await
Download instantly and pick your perfect format...

Read anywhere, anytime, on any device!

Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues 9th Edition Barbara

Mackinnon

https://textbookfull.com/product/ethics-theory-and-contemporary-
issues-9th-edition-barbara-mackinnon/

textbookfull.com

Business ethics Ninth Edition William H. Shaw

https://textbookfull.com/product/business-ethics-ninth-edition-
william-h-shaw/

textbookfull.com

The Pedagogy of Shalom Theory and Contemporary Issues of a

Faith based Education 1st Edition Heekap Lee

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-pedagogy-of-shalom-theory-and-
contemporary-issues-of-a-faith-based-education-1st-edition-heekap-lee/

textbookfull.com

Media Ethics Issues and Cases 9th Edition Philip Patterson

https://textbookfull.com/product/media-ethics-issues-and-cases-9th-
edition-philip-patterson/

textbookfull.com
Contemporary issues in strategic management 1st Edition
Moutinho

https://textbookfull.com/product/contemporary-issues-in-strategic-
management-1st-edition-moutinho/

textbookfull.com

Father Daughter Relationships Contemporary Research and

Issues 2nd Edition Nielsen

https://textbookfull.com/product/father-daughter-relationships-
contemporary-research-and-issues-2nd-edition-nielsen/

textbookfull.com

Educational Research Contemporary Issues and Practical

Approaches 2nd Edition Jerry Wellington

https://textbookfull.com/product/educational-research-contemporary-
issues-and-practical-approaches-2nd-edition-jerry-wellington/

textbookfull.com

Charity Marketing Contemporary Issues Research and

Practice 1st Edition Fran Hyde

https://textbookfull.com/product/charity-marketing-contemporary-
issues-research-and-practice-1st-edition-fran-hyde/

textbookfull.com

Contemporary Issues in Microeconomics 1st Edition Joseph

E. Stiglitz

https://textbookfull.com/product/contemporary-issues-in-
microeconomics-1st-edition-joseph-e-stiglitz/

textbookfull.com
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
Ethics
Theory and
Contemporary Issues
Ninth Edition

Barbara MacKinnon
University of San Francisco, Professor of Philosophy, Emerita

Andrew Fiala
California State University, Fresno, Professor of Philosophy

Australia • Brazil • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, © 2018, 2015, 2012 Cengage Learning
Ninth Edition
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright
Barbara MacKinnon, Andrew Fiala herein may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means,
except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, without the prior written
Product Director: Paul Banks
permission of the copyright owner.
Product Manager: Debra Matteson
Content Development Manager: Megan For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Garvey Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706
Content Developer: Adrienne Zicht Devlin For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.
Project Manager: Julia Giannotti Further permissions questions can be emailed to
Content Development Project Manager: Matt [email protected].
Gervais, Lumina Datamatics, Inc.
Associate Content Developer: Ryan The Library of Congress Control Number is on file.
McAndrews
Student Edition:
Product Assistant: Staci Eckenroth
ISBN: 978-1-305-95867-8
Marketing Manager: Jillian Borden
Loose-leaf Edition:
Senior Content Project Manager: Margaret ISBN: 978-1-305-95958-3
Park Bridges
Art Director: Marissa Falco Cengage Learning
Manufacturing Planner: Julio Esperas 20 Channel Center Street
IP Analyst: Alex Ricciardi Boston, MA 02210
USA
IP Project Manager: Nick Barrows
Production Service: Cenveo® Publisher Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with
Services employees residing in nearly 40 different countries and sales in more than
Compositor: Cenveo® Publisher Services 125 countries around the world. Find your local representative at
www.cengage.com.
Text designer: Cenveo® Publisher Services
Cover designer: Gary Ragaglia Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by
Nelson Education, Ltd.
Design credit: Illustrart/Shutterstock.com
Cover Images: To learn more about Cengage Learning Solutions, visit www.cengage.com.
© Samir Hussein/Getty Images
Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our preferred
© Photos.com/Getty Images online store www.cengagebrain.com.
© Cengage Learning
© Georgios Kollidas/Alamy Stock Photo
© Rob Melnychuk/Digital Vision/Getty Images
© Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock.com
© AP Images/Matthew Putney
© Scott Peterson/Getty Images News/Getty
Images
© Jose Luis Cereijido/EPA/Newscom

Printed in the United States of America

Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2016

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Contents

Preface ix Ethics, Religion, and Divine

History of Ethics Time Line xiii Command Theory 25
Pluralism and the Golden Rule 28
The Problem of Evil and Free
Part One ETHICAL THEORY 1
Will 29
Secular Ethics and Toleration 31
—1— Ethics and Ethical Criticisms of Secularism and Global
Reasoning 1 Ethics 32
Why Study Ethics? 1 READING Euthyphro • Plato 35
What Is Ethics? 2 Letter to a Christian Nation • SAM
HARRIS 38
Ethical and Other Types
Religion and Truth • Mohandas K.
of Evaluation 3 Gandhi 39
Sociobiology and the Naturalistic
Fallacy 5 Review Exercises 42
Ethical Terms 6
Ethics and Reasons 7 —3— Ethical Relativism 44
Intuitionism, Emotivism,
Subjectivism, Objectivism 7 Descriptive versus Normative
Ethical Reasoning and Ethical Relativism 45
Arguments 9 Individual versus Cultural
The Structure of Ethical Reasoning Relativism 46
and Argument 9 Strong and Weak Relativism 47
Evaluating and Making Good Reasons Supporting Ethical
Arguments 10 Relativism 48
Ethical Theory 11 The Diversity of Moral Views 48
Types of Ethical Theory 12 Tolerance and
Can Ethics Be Taught? 13 Open-Mindedness 48
Moral Uncertainty 48
READING Ethical Judgments and Matters of Situational Differences 48
Fact • David Hume 14
Emotivism and Ethics • Are These Reasons
C. L. Stevenson 15 Convincing? 49
Review Exercises 19 The Diversity of Moral Views 49
Tolerance and
Open-Mindedness 50
—2— Religion and Global Moral Uncertainty 50
Ethics 20 Situational Differences 50
Is Relativism
Freedom, Cosmopolitanism, and the Self-Contradictory? 51
European Enlightenment 22 Moral Realism 52
Religion, Civic Life, and Civil Moral Pluralism 53
Disobedience 24

iii ❮❮

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
iv CONTENTS

READING Who’s to Judge? • Louis Pojman 55 —6— Deontological Ethics and

Relativism and Its Benefits • John Immanuel Kant 114
Lachs 62
Review Exercises 67 Deontology and the Ethics of
Duty 115
Immanuel Kant 117
—4— Egoism, Altruism, and the What Is the Right Motive? 117
Social Contract 68 What Is the Right Thing to Do? 118
Psychological Egoism 71 The Categorical Imperative 119
What Is Psychological Egoism? 71 The First Form 120
Is Psychological Egoism True? 72 The Second Form 121
Ethical Egoism 73 Evaluating Kant’s Moral
Theory 122
What Is Ethical Egoism? 73
Is Ethical Egoism a Good The Nature of Moral
Theory? 73 Obligation 122
The Social Contract 75 The Application of the Categorical
Imperative 122
The Moral Point of View 76 Duty 123
Why Be Moral? 77 Moral Equality and Impartiality 123
READING The Ring of Gyges • Plato 79 Perfect and Imperfect Duties 124
Self Love • Thomas Hobbes 85 Variations on Kant and
The Social Contract and Deontology 125
Altruism • Steven Pinker 88
READING Fundamental Principles of the
Review Exercises 92 Metaphysic of Morals • Immanuel
Kant 126
—5— Utilitarianism Review Exercises 137
and John Stuart Mill 93
Weighing Consequences 95 —7— Natural Law and Human
Historical Background 96 Rights 138
Jeremy Bentham and John Natural Law Theory 140
Stuart Mill 96 Historical Origins 141
The Principle of Utility 97 Evaluating Natural Law
Pleasure and Happiness 97 Theory 143
Calculating the Greatest Amount of Natural Rights 145
Happiness 98 Evaluating Natural Rights
Quantity versus Quality Theory 146
of Pleasure 100 Is There a Human Nature? 147
Evaluating Utilitarianism 101 READING On Natural Law • Thomas
Application of the Principle 101 Aquinas 149
Utilitarianism and Personal Second Treatise of Civil
Integrity 101 Government • John Locke 151
Ends and Means 102
Review Exercises 154
The Trolley Problem 102
Act and Rule Utilitarianism 103
“Proof” of the Theory 105 —8— Virtue Ethics 155
READING Utilitarianism • John Stuart Mill 107 Virtues and Everyday Life 156
Review Exercises 112 Aristotle 157

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 CONTENTS v

Virtue as a Mean 158 Combining the Types of

Nature, Human Nature, and the Euthanasia 213
Human Good 158 Making Moral Judgments About
Cross-Cultural and Contemporary Euthanasia 214
Virtue Ethics 160 The Moral Significance of
Evaluating Virtue Ethics 161 Voluntariness 214
READING The Nicomachean Active versus Passive
Ethics • Aristotle 163 Euthanasia 216
Review Exercises 170 READING The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia •
J. Gay-Williams 221
Active and Passive Euthanasia • James
—9— Feminist Thought and Rachels 224
the Ethics of Care 171 Review Exercises 228
Gender in Moral Reasoning and the Discussion Cases 230
Ethics of Care 174
Is There a Gender Difference in —11— Abortion 231
Morality? 176
The Source of Feminine Stages of Fetal Development 233
Morality 177 Methods of Abortion 235
Evaluating Gender-Specific Abortion and the Law 237
Approaches to Morality 178 Abortion: The Moral Question 240
Feminist Thought 179 Arguments That Do Not Depend
Evaluation of Feminist Thought on the Moral Status of the
and the Ethics of Care 181 Fetus 240
READING Caring • Nel Noddings 184 Utilitarian Reasoning 240
The Need for More Than Some Rights Arguments 241
Justice • Annette Baier 185 Arguments That Depend on
What Is Feminist Ethics? • Hilde the Moral Status of the
Lindemann 192
Fetus 242
Review Exercises 198 Method I 242
Method II 245
Part Two ETHICAL ISSUES 199 READING A Defense of Abortion • Judith Jarvis
Thomson 251
—10— Euthanasia 199 Why Abortion Is Immoral • Don
Marquis 252
Euthanasia for Infants The Value of Choice and the Choice
and the Disabled 201 to Value: Expanding the Discussion
Criteria for Death 203 About Fetal Life within Prochoice
Types of Euthanasia 206 Advocacy • Bertha Alvarez
Manninen 261
Active and Passive
Euthanasia 206 Review Exercises 275
Voluntary, Nonvoluntary, and Discussion Cases 276
Involuntary Euthanasia 207
Advance Directives 208
Physician-Assisted Suicide 209 —12— Sexual Morality 278
Pain Medication and Palliative
Sedation 211 Current Issues 280
Ordinary and Extraordinary Conceptual Problems: What Is and
Measures 212 Is Not Sexual 285

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
vi CONTENTS

Relevant Factual Matters 286 —14— Economic Justice 344

Sexual Morality and Ethical
Theories 287 Economic Inequality 346
Consequentialist or Utilitarian Poverty, Education, and Health
Considerations 287 Care 349
Non-consequentialist Conceptions of Social Justice 350
or Deontological Process Distributive Justice 352
Considerations 288 End-State Distributive
Natural Law Considerations 289 Justice 353
Same-Sex Marriage 291 Equal Opportunity 354
READING U.S. Supreme Court Decision June 26, Political and Economic
2015 • Obergefell v. Hodges 296 Theories 356
Law, Morality, and “Sexual Libertarianism 356
Orientation” • John Finnis 298 Capitalism 357
“It’s Not Natural” • John Corvino 306 Socialism 357
Review Exercises 307 Modern Liberalism 359
Discussion Cases 308 John Rawls’s Theory of Justice 360
Communitarianism 363
READING Justice as Fairness • John Rawls 367
Distributive Justice • Robert
—13— Equality and Nozick 368
Discrimination 309 Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal • Ayn
Rand 369
Discrimination 310
Evangelii Gaudium • Pope
Racial Discrimination 311 Francis 370
The Principle of Equality 316 Review Exercises 373
Justice 316 Discussion Cases 374
Social Benefits and Harms 316
Proof and Reality of
Difference 316 —15— Punishment
Relevant Differences 317 and the Death Penalty 375
Challenges to the Principle 318
The Nature of Legal
Current Issues and the Law 320 Punishment 377
Profiling 322 The Deterrence Argument 378
Hate Crimes 324 The Retributivist Argument 379
Affirmative Action and Preferential Punishment and
Treatment 325 Responsibility 381
Consequentialist Prisons 383
Considerations 326 Race 384
Non-consequentialist Restoration and Rehabilitation 385
Considerations 328
The Death Penalty 386
READING Five Faces of Oppression • Iris Marion
Legal Issues 386
Young 333
Exonerations 388
Racisms • Kwame Anthony
Racial Bias and Fairness 388
Appiah 334
Costs 389
White Privilege, Black Rights • Naomi
Deterrence Considerations 390
Zack 335
Retributivist Considerations 391
Review Exercises 342 Mercy and Restorative Justice 392
Discussion Cases 343 Humane Executions 394

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 CONTENTS vii

READING The New Jim Crow • Michelle Approaches to Animal Ethics 468
Alexander 400 Sentience, Equal Consideration,
Are Prisons Obsolete? • Angela Y. and Animal Welfare 469
Davis 401 Animal Rights 472
Speech in Favor of Capital Punishment
(1868) • John Stuart Mill 402 READING All Animals Are Equal • Peter
A Theory of Just Execution • Lloyd Singer 477
Steffen 406 The Case for Animal Rights • Tom
Regan 486
Review Exercises 415 Speciesism and the Idea of
Discussion Cases 416 Equality • Bonnie Steinbock 487
Review Exercises 488
—16— Environmental Ethics 417 Discussion Cases 489

The Environment and Its

Value 419 —18— Biotechnology and
Anthropocentrism 420 Bioengineering 490
Cost–Benefit Analysis 421 Current Issues 492
Environmental Justice 422
Athletic and Cognitive
Ecocentrism 423 Enhancement 492
Deep Ecology 425 Stem Cell Research 493
Ecofeminism 426 Cloning 495
Genetic Engineering and Genetic
Current Issues 427
Screening 496
Climate Change 427 Genetically Modified Plants and
Ozone Depletion 431 Animals 499
Waste Disposal and
Pollution 431 Legal and Ethical Issues 500
Wilderness Preservation 433 Athletic and Cognitive
International Environmental Enhancement 501
Conventions 434 Stem Cell Research 502
Global Justice and the Tragedy of the Cloning 503
Commons 435 Genetic Engineering and Genetic
READING People or Penguins: The Case for Screening 506
Optimal Pollution • William F. Genetically Modified Organisms 509
Baxter 442 READING Transhumanist Declaration • Various
Deep Ecology • Bill Devall and George Authors 514
Sessions 443 Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls • Leon R.
Radical American Environmentalism Kass 515
and Wilderness Preservation: A Third In Defense of Posthuman
World Critique • Ramachandra Dignity • Nick Bostrom 525
Guha 449 Review Exercises 526
Review Exercises 455 Discussion Cases 527
Discussion Cases 456
—19— Violence and War 528
—17— Animal Ethics 457 Realism 531
Current Issues 460 Pacifism 533
Moral Vegetarianism 460 Just War Theory 534
Animal Experimentation 463 Jus ad Bellum 534
Endangered Species 466 Jus in Bello 536

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
viii CONTENTS

Current Issues 538 Justice 565

Terrorism 538 Rights 567
Targeted Killing and Drones 540 Practical Considerations 568
Weapons of Mass Global Inequality 568
Destruction 542 Levels of International Aid 569
War Crimes and Universal Human Causes of Global Poverty 570
Rights 544 Solutions and Progress 573
Torture 546
Globalization and Its Critics 573
READING Peace • Andrew Fitz-Gibbon 548
The Triumph of Just War Theory (and Economic Impacts 574
the Dangers of Success) • Michael Cultural Diversity 575
Walzer 554 READING The Singer Solution to World
Review Exercises 558 Poverty • Peter Singer 580
Discussion Cases 559
Living on a Lifeboat • Garrett
Hardin 584
Review Exercises 591
Discussion Cases 592
—20— Global Justice and
Globalization 560
Moral Arguments About Global
GLOSSARY 593
Poverty 563
Self-Interest 565 INDEX 603

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Preface

This ninth edition of Ethics: Theory and Contem- This edition offers expanded and continued cov-
porary Issues contains a substantial revision of the erage of the following topics: global (non-Western)
text and extensive update of the empirical mate- philosophy and religion, the prisoner’s dilemma
rial contained in the chapters focused on contem- and the tragedy of the commons, social justice and
porary issues. Andrew Fiala joined as coauthor on economic inequality, mass incarceration and decar
decar-
the eighth edition. In the ninth edition, we have ceration, restorative justice, environmental justice,
included new learning apparatus, especially tables biotechnology and bioengineering, gene editing,
that outline possible moral positions with regard vegetarianism and the ethics of hunting, circuses,
to the issues considered. As in past editions, each race and racism, pacifism, gay marriage, global pov-
chapter begins with a detailed, accessible intro- erty, LGBT and transgender issues, Black Lives Mat-
duction that prepares the student to read accom- ter, Syrian refugees, the precautionary principle, and
panying selections from important and influential climate change. This edition includes some famil-
philosophers. The book remains a comprehensive iar readings from previous editions and some new
introduction to ethics in theory and practice. It also additions. In some cases, older readings have been
continues to emphasize pedagogy through clear shortened to make room for new readings and short
summaries, engaging examples, and various study excerpts by a more diverse set of authors, includ-
tools—such as review exercises and discussion ing some emerging voices. New readings include:
cases. Each chapter begins with a list of learning John Lachs on relativism, Hilde Lindemann on femi-
objectives, and the book ends with an extensive nism, a new essay on abortion by Bertha Alvarez
glossary of key terms. Manninen, U.S. Supreme Court Obergefell Deci-
sion, Naomi Zack on Black Lives Matter, Iris Marion
ADDITIONS AND CHANGES Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression,” Pope Francis
Although the basic elements remain the same, this and Ayn Rand on economic issues, Michelle Alex-
new ninth edition includes the following additions ander on the New Jim Crow, Tom Regan on ani-
and changes from the eighth edition. Each chapter mal rights, the Transhumanist declaration, Andrew
in Part I has been revised to focus on readability. All Fitz-Gibbon on peace, and Garret Hardin on global
introductory and empirical material in each chapter poverty.
in Part II has been updated to incorporate the latest
information about contemporary issues and current Key Elements
affairs. These updates include recent statistics, rel- Each chapter of Ethics: Theory and Contempo-
evant cases, and contemporary examples. rary Issues contains an extended summary of key

ix ❮❮

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
x PREFACE

concepts and issues written in clear, accessible prose. Pedagogical Aids This text is designed as an acces-
These detailed summaries go beyond the short intro- sible, “user-friendly” introduction to ethics. To aid both
ductions found in most ethics anthologies to provide instructor and student, we have provided the following
students with a thorough grounding in the theory pedagogical aids:
and practical application of philosophical ethics.
As previously noted, these discussions have been
❯ a list of learning objectives at the beginning of
each chapter (new to this edition)
thoroughly updated to include detailed information
on current events, statistics, and political and cul-
❯ a real-life event, hypothetical dialogue, or
updated empirical data at the beginning of each
tural developments.
chapter
The theory chapters in Part I present detailed
❯ diagrams, subheadings, and boldface key terms
summaries of the theories and major concepts, posi-
and definitions that provide guideposts for read-
tions, and arguments. The contemporary issues
ers and organize the summary exposition
chapters in Part II include summaries of:
❯ study questions for each reading selection
❯ current social conditions and recent events, with ❯ review exercises at the end of each chapter that
special emphasis on their relevance to students’ can be used for exams and quizzes
lives ❯ a glossary of definitions of key terms (new to
❯ conceptual issues, such as how to define key this edition)
words and phrases (for example, cloning,
cloning ❯ discussion cases that follow each chapter in
terrorism, and distributive justice) Part II and provide opportunities for class or
❯ arguments and suggested ways to organize an group discussion
ethical analysis of each topic ❯ topics and resources for written assignments in
❯ tables outlining possible moral positions, linked the discussion cases
to normative theories and key authors. ❯ tables outlining moral positions (new to this
edition).
Throughout this text, we seek to engage read-
ers by posing challenging ethical questions and then A Digital Solution for Students and
offering a range of possible answers or explanations. Instructors:
The aim is to present more than one side of each issue MindTap for Philosophy for Ethics: Theory and
so that students can decide for themselves what posi- Contemporary Issues is a personalized, online
tion they will take. This also allows instructors more digital learning platform providing students with an
latitude to emphasize specific arguments and con- immersive learning experience that builds critical
cepts and to direct the students’ focus as they see fit. thinking skills. Through a carefully designed chapter-
Where possible throughout the text, the rela- based learning path, MindTap allows students to
tion of ethical theory to the practical issues is indi- easily identify the chapter’s learning objectives;
cated. For example, one pervasive distinction used draw connections and improve writing skills by
throughout the text is between consequentialist and completing essay assignments; read short, manage-
non-consequentialist considerations and arguments. able sections from the e-book; and test their content
The idea is that if students are able to first situate knowledge with critical thinking Aplia™ questions.
or categorize a philosophical reason or argument,
then they will be better able to evaluate it critically ❯ Chapter e-Book: Each chapter within MindTap
in their thinking and writing. Connections to related contains the narrative of the chapter, offering an
concepts and issues in other chapters are also high- easy to navigate online reading experience.
lighted throughout the text to help students note ❯ Chapter Quiz: Each chapter within MindTap
similarities and contrasts among various ethical ends with a summative Chapter Test covering
positions. the chapter’s learning objectives and ensuring

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 PREFACE xi

students are reading and understanding the ❯ Digital flash cards are premade for each chapter,
material presented. and students can make their own by adding
❯ Chapter Aplia Assignment: Each chapter images, descriptions, and more.
includes an Aplia assignment that provides auto-
MindTap gives students ample opportunities for
matically graded critical thinking assignments
improving comprehension and for self-evaluation to
with detailed, immediate feedback and expla-
prepare for exams, while also providing faculty and
nations on every question. Students can also
students alike a clear way to measure and assess
choose to see another set of related questions if
student progress. Faculty can use MindTap as a turn-
they did not earn all available points in their first
key solution or customize by adding YouTube videos,
attempt and want more practice.
RSS feeds, or their own documents directly within
❯ Ethics Simulations: Each chapter offers an
the e-book or within each chapter’s Learning Path.
interactive simulated ethical dilemma, allowing
MindTap goes well beyond an e-book and a home-
students to make decisions and see the implica-
work solution. It is truly a Personal Learning Experi-
tions of their choices.
ence that allows instructors to synchronize the reading
❯ Chapter Essay Question: Every chapter ends
with engaging assignments. To learn more, ask your
with essay prompts that ask students to explore
Cengage Learning sales representative to demo it for
and reflect on concepts from the chapter and
you—or go to www.Cengage.com/MindTap.
build writing and critical thinking faculties.
❯ KnowNOW! Philosophy Blog: The KnowNOW! Instructor’s Resources:
Philosophy Blog connects course concepts with
The Instructor’s Companion Site features an Instruc-
real-world events. Updated twice a week, the
tor’s Manual, PowerPoint Lecture Slides, and a
blog provides a succinct philosophical analysis of
robust Test Bank (Cengage Learning Testing pow-
major news stories, along with multimedia and
ered by Cognero).
discussion-starter questions.
The Instructor’s Manual provides useful sug-
MindTap also includes a variety of other tools that gestions for lectures and classroom activities, based
support philosophy teaching and learning: directly on the content in this book. Answers to
many review exercises or study questions are pro-
❯ The Philosophy Toolbox collects tutorials on vided, as well as questions for further thought.
using MindTap and researching and writing aca- The PowerPoint Lecture Slides offer a chapter-
demic papers, including citation information and by-chapter breakdown Cengage Learning Testing,
tools, that instructors can use to support students powered by Cognero, new to this edition, allows
in the writing process. instructors to author, edit, and manage Test Bank
❯ Questia allows professors and students to search content. Instructors can create multiple test versions
a database of thousands of peer-reviewed jour
jour- and instantly deliver them through their learning
nals, newspapers, magazines, and full-length management system right to the classroom.
books—all assets can be added to any relevant Interested instructors can find and access all this
chapter in MindTap, and students can content by adding the ninth edition of this book to
❯ Kaltura allows instructors to create and insert their bookshelf on Cengage.com.
inline video and audio into the MindTap platform.
❯ ReadSpeaker reads the text out loud to students IN SUMMARY
in a voice they can customize. We have sought to make this ninth edition of Ethics:
Ethics
❯ Note-taking and highlighting are organized in a Theory and Contemporary Issues the most compre-
central location that can be synced with Ever
Ever- hensive ethics text available. It combines theory
Note on any mobile device a student may have and issues, text and readings, as well as up-to-date
access to. empirical information about contemporary moral

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
xii PREFACE

problems. It is designed to be flexible, user-friendly, of South Carolina; Dusan Galic, College of DuPage;
current, pedagogically helpful, and balanced. Erin Anchustegu, Boise State University; Christina
Tomczak, Cedar Valley College; Susan Brown, Uni-
❯ The flexible structure of the text allows instruc- versity of West Florida; Philip Cronce, Chicago State
tors to emphasize only those theories and applied University; William Rodriguez, Bethune Cookman
ethical topics which best suit their courses. University; Robert Arp, Johnson County Community
❯ The text is user-friendly, while at the same time College; Jason Gooch, Yakima Valley Community
philosophically reliable. It employs pedagogical College; Jason Flato, Georgia Perimeter College; and
aids throughout and at the end of each chapter, Eric Severson, Seattle Pacific University.
and provides extensive examples from current Barbara MacKinnon especially wants to thank
events and trends. The exposition challenges the students in her classes at the University of San
students with stimulating questions and is Francisco. Over the years, they have contributed
interspersed with useful diagrams, charts, and greatly to this text by challenging her to keep up
headings. with the times and to make things more clear and
❯ The text not only provides up-to-date coverage more interesting. She also appreciates the support
of developments in the news and in scientific of her husband and fellow philosopher, Edward
journals but also on ethical issues as they are MacKinnon. She dedicates this book to her two
discussed in contemporary philosophy. wonderful daughters, Jennifer and Kathleen. Andrew
❯ It offers a balanced collection of readings, includ- Fiala is thankful for Barbara’s hard work throughout
ing both the ethical theories and contemporary the previous editions of this book and for the oppor-
sources on the issues. tunity to transform his classroom teaching experi-
❯ Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, ninth ence into a useful text for teaching ethics.
edition, is accompanied by a broad range of We also wish to acknowledge the many profes-
online and textual tools that amplify its teach- sional people from Cengage Learning and its ven-
ability and give instructors specific pedagogical dors who have worked on this edition, including:
tools for different learning styles. Debra Matteson, Product Manager; Adrienne Devlin,
Content Developer; Megan Garvey, Content Devel-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS opment Manager; Lauren MacLachlan, Production
We wish to thank the many people who have made Manager; Margaret Park Bridges, Senior Content
valuable suggestions for improving the ninth edi- Project Manager; Marissa Falco, Art Director; and
tion of the text, including Marie Gaudio-Zaccaria, Kritika Kaushik, Project Manager, at Cenveo Pub-
Georgia Perimeter College; K.C. Warble III, University lisher Services.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 HISTORY OF ETHICS TIME LINE xiii

Ancient
500 B.C.E. 400 300 200 100 0 100 C.E. 200

Socrates Jesus
Sappho 469–399 Zeno ? 4 B.C.E.–C.E. 29 Plotinus
637–577 351–270 205–270
Plato Philo Judaeus
Buddha 427–347 20 B.C.E.–C.E. 40
557–477 Aristotle Sextus Empiricus
384–322 60–117
Confucius Marcus Aurelius
552–479 121–180

Medieval
C.E. 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Augustine Anselm Aquinas
345–400 1033–1109 1224–1274
Boethius
480–524 Abelard Scotus
Mohammed 1079–1142 1265–1308
570–632 Avicebron Ockham
1021–1058 1285–1347
Maimonides
1135–1204
Avicenna Averroes
980–1037 1126–1198

Modern
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Bacon Locke Hume Kierkegaard Moore
1561–1626 1632–1704 1711–1776 1813–1851 1873–1958
Hobbes Leibniz Kant Marx Rawls
1588–1679 1646–1716 1724–1804 1818–1883 1921–2002

Spinoza Hegel Nietzsche Habermas

1632–1677 1770–1831 1844–1900 1929–
Rousseau
1712–1778 Mill Sartre Singer
1806–1873 1905–1979 b. 1946–
Gandhi Noddings
1869–1948 b. 1929–
Wollstonecraft
1759–1797 DeBeauvoir
1908–1986
Bentham James
1748–1832 1846–1910
Dewey
1859–1952

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 1
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe the philosophical study of ethics. • Differentiate between instrumental and

• Discuss the difference between normative
•
intrinsic values.

Jack Hollingsworth/Photodisc/Getty Images

and descriptive claims. Distinguish consequentialist from
• Define key terms: intuitionism, emotivism,
objectivism, and subjectivism.
nonconsequentialist approaches to
ethics.

• Explain the difference between

metaethics and normative ethics.
• Use the distinctions among motives,
acts, and consequences to analyze

• Decide whether naturalistic explanations

of ethics commit the naturalistic fallacy.
ethical phenomena.

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

WHY STUDY ETHICS?

It is clear that we often disagree about questions of value. Should same-sex marriage
be legal? Should women have abortions? Should drugs such as marijuana be legal-
ized? Should we torture terrorists in order to get information from them? Should we
eat animals or use them in medical experiments? These sorts of questions are sure to
expose divergent ideas about what is right or wrong.
Discussions of these sorts of questions often devolve into unreasonable name-
calling, foot-stomping, and other questionable argument styles. The philosophical
study of ethics aims to produce good arguments that provide reasonable support for
our opinions about practical topics. If someone says that abortion should (or should
not) be permitted, he or she needs to explain why this is so. It is not enough to say
that abortion should not be permitted because it is wrong or that women should be
allowed to choose abortion because it is wrong to limit women’s choices. To say
that these things are wrong is merely to reiterate that they should not be permitted.
Such an answer begs the question. Circular, question-begging arguments are falla-
cious. We need further argument and information to know why abortion is wrong
or why limiting free choice is wrong. We need a theory of what is right and wrong,
good or evil, justified, permissible, and unjustifiable, and we need to understand how
our theory applies in concrete cases. The first half of this text will discuss various

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
2 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

theories and concepts that can be used to help us basic ethical questions. In Chapter 2, we discuss the
avoid begging the question in debates about ethical world’s diverse religious traditions and ask whether
issues. The second half looks in detail at a number there is a set of common ethical ideas that is shared
of these issues. by these traditions. In this chapter, we clarify what
It is appropriate to wonder, at the outset, why we ethics is and how ethical reasoning should proceed.
need to do this. Why isn’t it sufficient to simply state
your opinion and assert that “x is wrong (or evil, WHAT IS ETHICS?
just, permissible, etc.)”? One answer to this ques- On the first day of an ethics class, we often ask stu-
tion is that such assertions do nothing to solve the dents to write one-paragraph answers to the ques-
deep conflicts of value that we find in our world. We tion, “What is ethics?”
know that people disagree about abortion, same- How would you answer? Over the years, there
sex marriage, animal rights, and other issues. If we have been significant differences of opinion among
are to make progress toward understanding each our students on this issue. Some have argued that
other, if we are to make progress toward establishing ethics is a highly personal thing, a matter of private
some consensus about these topics, then we have opinion. Others claim that our values come from
to understand why we think certain things are right family upbringing. Other students think that ethics
and others are wrong. We need to make arguments is a set of social principles, the codes of one’s soci-
and give reasons in order to work out our own con- ety or particular groups within it, such as medical
clusions about these issues and in order to explain or legal organizations. Some write that many people
our conclusions to others. get their ethical beliefs from their religion.
It is also insufficient to appeal to custom or One general conclusion can be drawn from these
authority in deriving our conclusions about moral students’ comments: We tend to think of ethics as
issues. While it may be appropriate for children to the set of values or principles held by individuals
simply obey their parents’ decisions, adults should or groups. I have my ethics and you have yours;
strive for more than conformity and obedience to groups—professional organizations and societies,
authority. Sometimes our parents and grandparents for example—have shared sets of values. We can
are wrong—or they disagree among themselves. study the various sets of values that people have.
Sometimes the law is wrong—or laws conflict. This could be done historically and sociologically.
And sometimes religious authorities are wrong—or Or we could take a psychological interest in deter-
authorities do not agree. To appeal to authority on mining how people form their values. But philosoph-
moral issues, we would first have to decide which ical ethics is a critical enterprise that asks whether
authority is to be trusted and believed. Which reli- any particular set of values or beliefs is better than
gion provides the best set of moral rules? Which set any other. We compare and evaluate sets of values
of laws in which country is to be followed? Even and beliefs, giving reasons for our evaluations. We
within the United States, there is currently a conflict ask questions such as, “Are there good reasons for
of laws with regard to some of these issues: some preferring one set of ethics over another?” In this
states have legalized medical marijuana or physi- text, we examine ethics from a critical or evaluative
cian assisted suicide, others have not. The world’s standpoint. This examination will help you come to
religions also disagree about a number of issues: a better understanding of your own values and the
for example, the status of women, the permissibil- values of others.
ity of abortion, and the question of whether war Ethics is a branch of philosophy. It is also called
is justifiable. And members of the same religion moral philosophy. In general, philosophy is a dis-
or denomination may disagree among themselves cipline or study in which we ask—and attempt to
about these issues. To begin resolving these con- answer—basic questions about key areas or sub-
flicts, we need critical philosophical inquiry into ject matters of human life and about pervasive and

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Chapter 1 ❮❮ Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 3

significant aspects of experience. Some philoso- Ethics, or moral philosophy, asks basic questions
phers, such as Plato and Kant, have tried to do this about the good life, about what is better and worse,
systematically by interrelating their philosophical about whether there is any objective right and wrong,
views in many areas. According to Alfred North and how we know it if there is.
Whitehead, “Philosophy is the endeavor to frame a One objective of ethics is to help us decide what
coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas is good or bad, better or worse. This is generally
in terms of which every element of our experience called normative ethics. Normative ethics defends
can be interpreted.” 1 Some contemporary philoso- a thesis about what is good, right, or just. Norma-
phers have given up on the goal of building a sys- tive ethics can be distinguished from metaethics.
tem of general ideas, arguing instead that we must Metaethical inquiry asks questions about the
work at problems piecemeal, focusing on one partic- nature of ethics, including the meaning of ethical
ular issue at a time. For instance, some philosophers terms and judgments. Questions about the relation
might analyze the meaning of the phrase to know, between philosophical ethics and religion—as we
while others might work on the morality of lying. discuss in Chapter 2—are metaethical. Theoretical
Some philosophers are optimistic about our ability to questions about ethical relativism—as discussed in
address these problems, while others are more skep- Chapter 3—are also metaethical. The other chapters
tical because they think that the way we analyze the in Part I are more properly designated as ethical
issues and the conclusions we draw will always be theory. These chapters present concrete normative
influenced by our background, culture, and habitual theories; they make claims about what is good or
ways of thinking. Most agree, however, that these evil, just or unjust.
problems are worth wondering about and caring From the mid 1930s until recently, metaeth-
about. ics predominated in English-speaking universities.
We can ask philosophical questions about many In doing metaethics, we often analyze the mean-
subjects. In the philosophical study of aesthetics, ing of ethical language. Instead of asking whether
philosophers ask basic or foundational questions the death penalty is morally justified, we would
about art and objects of beauty: what kinds of things ask what we meant in calling something “morally
do or should count as art (rocks arranged in a cer- justified” or “good” or “right.” We analyze ethical
tain way, for example)? Is what makes something language, ethical terms, and ethical statements to
an object of aesthetic interest its emotional expres- determine what they mean. In doing this, we func-
siveness, its peculiar formal nature, or its ability tion at a level removed from that implied by our
to reveal truths that cannot be described in other definition. It is for this reason that we call this other
ways? In the philosophy of science, philosophers type of ethics metaethics—
metaethics meta meaning “beyond.”
ask whether scientific knowledge gives us a picture Some of the discussions in this chapter are metaethi-
of reality as it is, whether progress exists in science, cal discussions—for example, the analysis of vari-
and whether the scientific method discloses truth. ous senses of “good.” As you will see, much can be
Philosophers of law seek to understand the nature learned from such discussions.
of law itself, the source of its authority, the nature
of legal interpretation, and the basis of legal respon- ETHICAL AND OTHER TYPES
sibility. In the philosophy of knowledge, called OF EVALUATION
epistemology, we try to answer questions about “That’s great!” “Now, this is what I call a delicious
what we can know of ourselves and our world, and meal!” “That play was wonderful!” All of these
what it means to know something rather than just to statements express approval of something. They do
believe it. In each area, philosophers ask basic ques- not tell us much about the meal or the play, but they
tions about the particular subject matter. This is also do imply that the speaker thought they were good.
true of moral philosophy. These are evaluative statements. Ethical statements

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
4 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

or judgments are also evaluative. They tell us what “That is a good knife” is an evaluative or nor-
the speaker believes is good or bad. They do not sim- mative statement. However, it does not mean that
ply describe the object of the judgment—for exam- the knife is morally good. In making ethical judg-
ple, as an action that occurred at a certain time or ments, we use terms such as good, bad, right,
that affected people in a certain way. They go further wrong, obligatory, and permissible. We talk about
and express a positive or negative regard for it. Of what we ought or ought not to do. These are evalu-
course, factual matters are relevant to moral evalua- ative terms. But not all evaluations are moral in
tion. For example, factual judgments about whether nature. We speak of a good knife without attribut-
capital punishment has a deterrent effect might be ing moral goodness to it. In so describing the knife,
relevant to our moral judgments about it. So also we are probably referring to its practical usefulness
would we want to know the facts about whether for cutting. Other evaluations refer to other systems
violence can ever bring about peace; this would of values. When people tell us that a law is legiti-
help us judge the morality of war. Because ethical mate or unconstitutional, that is a legal judgment.
judgments often rely on such empirical informa - When we read that two articles of clothing ought not
tion, ethics is often indebted to other disciplines such to be worn together, that is an aesthetic judgment.
as sociology, psychology, and history. Thus, we When religious leaders tell members of their com-
can distinguish between empirical or descriptive munities what they ought to do, that is a religious
claims, which state factual beliefs, and evaluative matter. When a community teaches people to bow
judgments, which state whether such facts are good before elders or use eating utensils in a certain way,
or bad, just or unjust, right or wrong. Evaluative that is a matter of custom. These various normative
judgments are also called normative judgments. or evaluative judgments appeal to practical, legal,
Moral judgments are evaluative because they “place aesthetic, religious, or customary norms for their
a value,” negative or positive, on some action or justification.
practice, such as capital punishment. How do other types of normative judgments
differ from moral judgments? Some philosophers
• Descriptive (empirical) judgment: Capital punish-
believe that it is a characteristic of moral “oughts”
ment acts (or does not act) as a deterrent.
in particular that they override other “oughts,” such
• Normative (moral) judgment: Capital punishment
as aesthetic ones. In other words, if we must choose
is justifiable (or unjustifiable).
between what is aesthetically pleasing and what is
We also evaluate people, saying that a person is morally right, then we ought to do what is morally
good or evil, just or unjust. Because these evalua- right. In this way, morality may also take prece-
tions also rely on beliefs in general about what is dence over the law and custom. The doctrine of civil
good or right, they are also normative. For example, disobedience relies on this belief, because it holds
the judgment that a person is a hero or a villain is that we may disobey certain laws for moral reasons.
based upon a normative theory about good or evil Although moral evaluations differ from other nor-
sorts of people. mative evaluations, this is not to say that there is no

Normative Judgments in Descriptive Judgments in

Ethics Law Aesthetics Religion Custom Sociology Psychology

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Chapter 1 ❮❮ Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 5

relation between them. In fact, moral reasons often against simplistically deriving an ought from an is
form the basis for certain laws. But law—at least in Hume’s law. From this perspective, it is not logi-
the United States—results from a variety of political cal, for example, to base our ideas about how we
compromises. We don’t tend to look to the law for ought to behave from a factual account of how we
moral guidance. And we are reluctant to think that actually do behave. This logical mistake was called
we can “legislate morality,” as the saying goes. Of the naturalistic fallacy by G. E. Moore, an influ-
course, there is still an open debate about whether ential philosopher of the early twentieth century.
the law should enforce moral ideas in the context of Moore maintained that moral terms such as good
issues such as gay marriage or abortion. are names for nonempirical properties that cannot be
There may be moral reasons supporting legal reduced to some other natural thing. Moore claimed
arrangements—considerations of basic justice, for that to attempt to define good in terms of some mun-
example. Furthermore, the fit or harmony between dane or natural thing such as pleasure is to com-
forms and colors that ground some aesthetic judg- mit a version of this fallacy. The problem is that we
ments may be similar to the rightness or moral fit can ask whether pleasures are actually good. Just
between certain actions and certain situations or because we desire pleasure does not mean that it is
beings. Moreover, in some ethical systems, actions good to desire pleasure. As Moore suggested, there
are judged morally by their practical usefulness for is always an open question about whether what is
producing valued ends. For now, however, note that natural is also good.
ethics is not the only area in which we make norma- Now, not everyone agrees that appeals to nature
tive judgments. in ethics are fallacious. There are a variety of natu-
ralistic approaches to thinking about ethics. One
SOCIOBIOLOGY AND THE NATURALISTIC traditional approach to ethics is called natural law
FALLACY ethics (which we discuss in detail in Chapter 7).
The distinction between descriptive and norma- Natural law ethics focuses on human nature and
tive claims is a central issue for thinking about eth- derives ethical precepts from an account of what
ics. We often confuse these issues in our ordinary is natural for humans. Natural law ethicists may
thinking, in part because we think that what we argue, for example, that human body parts have
ordinarily do is what we ought to do. Many people natural functions and that by understanding these
are inclined to say that if something is natural to natural functions, we can figure out certain moral
us, then we ought to do it. For example, one might ideas about sexuality or reproduction. Opponents
argue that since eating meat is natural for us, we might argue that this commits the naturalistic fal-
ought to eat meat. But vegetarians will disagree. lacy, since there is no obvious moral content to be
Indeed, there is no necessary relation between what seen in the structure and function of our body parts.
is ethical and what is natural or customary. It is thus A more recent version of naturalism in ethics
not true that what is natural is always good. But focuses on evolutionary biology and cognitive sci-
people often make the mistake of confusing facts of ence. From this perspective, to understand morality,
nature and value judgments. Most of the time, we we need to understand the basic functions of our
are not attentive to the shift from facts to values, species, including the evolutionary reasons behind
the shift from is to ought. Consider an example used moral behavior. We also need to understand how
by the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume, our brains function in order to explain how pleasure
who noticed that incest appears to be quite natural— works, why some people are psychopathic, and why
animals do it all the time. But human beings con- we struggle to balance egoistic and altruistic moti-
demn incest. If it is natural, why do we condemn it? vations. One version of this naturalism is known
Hume pointed out the problem of deriving an ought as sociobiology—an idea that was introduced by
from an is; philosophers after Hume named the rule the biologist E. O. Wilson. 2 “If the brain evolved

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
6 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

Dawkins’s idea is that our genes use our altruistic

and other behaviors to spread themselves. Thus,
when we cooperate within groups that share a
genetic endowment, we help to preserve the group
and help to disseminate our shared genetic char-
acteristics, often in competition with rival genetic
groups.4
In discussing sociobiology and interpreting bio-
logical evidence, we must be careful, however, not
to anthropomorphize.5 When we look at the natu-
ral world, we often interpret it in anthropomorphic
terms, seeing in animals and even in genes them-
selves the motivations and interests that human
beings have. In other words, we must be careful that
our value judgments do not cloud or confuse our
description of the facts.
While the naturalistic approach of sociobiology
Jeannette Katzir Photog/Shutterstock.com

is provocative and insightful, we might still worry

that it commits the naturalistic fallacy. Just because
altruistic behavior is natural and useful in the evo-
lutionary struggle for survival does not mean that
it is good, just, or right. To see this, let us return
to Hume’s example of incest. Incest might be useful
as a method for disseminating our genetic material—
so long as the negative problems associated with
Does animal behavior provide a guide for human inbreeding are minimized. We do inbreed animals in
ethical behavior? this way in order to select for desirable traits. But
it is still appropriate to ask whether incest is mor
mor-
ally permissible for human beings—the question of
by natural selection, even the capacities to select ought might not be settled by what is.
particular esthetic judgments and religious beliefs
must have arisen by the same mechanistic process,” ETHICAL TERMS
Wilson explained. 3 The basic idea of sociobiology You might have wondered what the difference is
is that human behaviors result from the pressures between calling something “right” and calling it
of natural selection. Understanding human moral- “good.” Consider the ethical meaning for these
ity involves understanding the adaptive advantage terms. Right and wrong usually apply to actions, as
of certain behaviors, which can be studied by com- in “You did the right thing,” or “That is the wrong
paring human behaviors with the behavior of other thing to do.” These terms prescribe things for us to
social animals—from insects to chimpanzees. do or not to do. On the other hand, when we say
Sociobiology attempts to understand altruism, for that something is morally good, we may not explic-
example, in terms of evolutionary processes. From itly recommend doing it. However, we do recom-
this perspective, altruistic concern develops through mend that it be positively regarded. Thus, we say
natural selection because altruistic animals will things such as “Peace is good, and distress is bad.”
help each other survive. Biologist Richard Dawkins It is also interesting that with “right” and “wrong”
explains a related idea in terms of “the selfish gene.” there seems to be no in-between; it is either one or

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Chapter 1 ❮❮ Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 7

the other. However, with “good” and “bad” there is of making good judgments. Sometimes this is surely
room for degrees, and some things are thought to be true, as when we are overcome by anger, jealousy,
better or worse than others. or fear and cannot think clearly. Biases and preju-
Other ethical terms require careful consideration. dice may stem from such strong feelings. We think
For example, when we say that something “ought” prejudice is wrong because it prevents us from judg-
or “ought not” to be done, there is a sense of ing rightly. But emotions can often aid good deci-
urgency and obligation. We can refrain from doing sion making. We may, for example, simply feel the
what we ought to do, but the obligation is still there. injustice of a certain situation or the wrongness of
On the other hand, there are certain actions that we someone’s suffering. Furthermore, our caring about
think are permissible but that we are not obligated some issue or person may, in fact, direct us to more
to do. Thus, one may think that there is no obliga- carefully examine the ethical issues involved. How-
tion to help someone in trouble, though it is “mor- ever, some explanation of why we hold a certain
ally permissible” (i.e., not wrong) to do so and even moral position is still required. Simply to say “X
“praiseworthy” to do so in some cases. Somewhat is just wrong” without explanation, or to merely
more specific ethical terms include just and unjust express strong feelings or convictions about “X,” is
and virtuous and vicious. not sufficient.
To a certain extent, which set of terms we use
depends on the particular overall ethical viewpoint INTUITIONISM, EMOTIVISM,
or theory we adopt. This will become clearer as we SUBJECTIVISM, OBJECTIVISM
discuss and analyze the various ethical theories in Philosophers differ on how we know what is
this first part of the text. good. They also differ on the question of whether
moral judgments refer to something objective or
ETHICS AND REASONS whether they are reports of subjective opinions or
When we evaluate something as right or wrong, dispositions.
good or bad, we appeal to certain norms or rea- To say that something is good is often thought
sons. If I say that affirmative action is unjustified, I to be different from saying that something is yel-
should give reasons for this conclusion; it will not be low or heavy. The latter two qualities are empirical,
acceptable for me to respond that this is merely the known by our senses. However, good or goodness
way I feel. If I have some intuitive negative response is held to be a nonempirical property, said by some
to preferential treatment forms of affirmative action, to be knowable through intuition. A position known
then I will be expected to delve deeper to determine as intuitionism claims that our ideas about ethics
whether there are reasons for this attitude. Perhaps I rest upon some sort of intuitive knowledge of ethi-
have experienced the bad results of such programs. cal truths. This view is associated with G. E. Moore,
Or I may believe that giving preference in hiring whom we discussed earlier. 6 Another philoso-
or school admissions on the basis of race or sex is pher, W. D. Ross, thinks that we have a variety of
unfair. In either case, I will be expected to push the “crystal-clear intuitions” about basic values. These
matter further and explain why it is unfair or even intuitions are clear and distinct beliefs about ethics,
what constitutes fairness and unfairness. which Ross explains using an analogy with mathe-
Reason-giving is essential in philosophical eth- matics: just as we see or intuit the self-evident truth
ics. However, this does not mean that making ethi- of “2 + 2 = 4,” we also see or intuit ethical truths:
cal judgments is and must be purely rational. We for example, that we have a duty to keep our prom-
might be tempted to think that good moral judg- ises. As Ross explains,
ments require us to be objective and not let our feel- Both in mathematics and in ethics we have certain
ings, or emotions, enter into our decision making. crystal-clear intuitions from which we build up all that
Yet this assumes that feelings always get in the way we can know about the nature of numbers and the

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
8 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

nature of duty . . . we do not read off our knowledge of One worry, however, is that our emotions and
particular branches of duty from a single ideal of the feelings of sympathy or disgust are variable and rel-
good life, but build up our ideal of the good life from ative. Our own emotional responses vary depending
intuitions into the particular branches of duty.7 upon our moods and these responses vary among
A very important question is whether our intu- and between individuals. Emotional responses are
itions point toward some objective moral facts in the relative to culture and even to the subjective dis-
world or whether they are reports of something sub- positions of individuals. Indeed, our own feelings
jective. A significant problem for intuitionism is that change over time and are not reliable or sufficient
people’s moral intuitions seem to differ. Unlike the gauges of what is going on in the external world.
crystal-clear intuitions of mathematics—which are The worry here is that our emotions merely express
shared by all of us—the intuitions of ethics are not internal or subjective responses to things and that
apparently shared by everyone. they do not connect us to an objective and stable
Another view, sometimes called emotivism, source of value.
maintains that when we say something is good, we Other moral theories aim for more objective
are showing our approval of it and recommending it sources for morality. From this standpoint, there
to others rather than describing it. This view is asso- must be objective reasons that ground our subjec-
ciated with the work of twentieth-century philoso- tive and emotional responses to things. Instead
phers such as A. J. Ayer and C. L. Stevenson. But it of saying that the things we desire are good, an
has deeper roots in a theory of the moral sentiments, objectivist about ethics will argue that we ought to
such as we find in eighteenth-century philosophers desire things that are good—with an emphasis on
Adam Smith and David Hume. Hume maintains, for the goodness of the thing-in-itself apart from our
example, that reason is “the slave of the passions,” subjective responses. The ancient Greek philosopher
by which he means that the ends or goals we pursue Plato was an objectivist in this sense. Objectivists
are determined by our emotions, passions, and sen- hold that values have an objective reality—that they
timents. Adam Smith maintains that human beings are objects available for knowledge—as opposed
are motivated by the experience of pity, compassion, to subjectivists, who claim that value judgments
and sympathy for other human beings. For Smith, merely express subjective opinion. Plato argues that
ethics develops out of natural sympathy toward one there is some concept or idea called “the Good” and
another, experienced by social beings like ourselves. that we can compare our subjective moral opinions
Emotivism offers an explanation of moral knowl- about morality with this objective standard. Those
edge that is subjective, with moral judgments resting who want to ground morality in God are objectivists,
upon subjective experience. One version of emotiv- as are those who defend some form of natural law
ism makes ethical judgments akin to expressions of ethics, which focuses on essential or objective fea-
approval or disapproval. In this view, to say “murder tures of bodies and their functions. Interestingly, the
is wrong” is to express something like “murder— approach of sociobiology tends not to be objectivist
yuck!” Similarly, to say “courageous self-sacrifice is in this sense. Although the sociobiologist bases her
good” is to express something like “self-sacrifice— study of morality on objective facts in the world, the
yay!” One contemporary author, Leon Kass, whom sociobiologist does not think that moral judgments
we study in Chapter 18, argues that there is wisdom represent moral facts. Instead, as Michael Ruse
in our experiences of disgust and repugnance—that puts it,
our emotional reactions to things reveal deep moral Objective ethics, in the sense of something written on
insight. Kass focuses especially on the “yuck factor” tablets of stone (or engraven on God’s heart) external
that many feel about advanced biotechnologies such to us, has to go. The only reasonable thing that we, as
as cloning. sociobiologists, can say is that morality is something

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Chapter 1 ❮❮ Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 9

biology makes us believe in, so that we will further The Structure of Ethical Reasoning
our evolutionary ends.8 and Argument
One of the issues introduced in Ruse’s rejection To be able to reason well in ethics you need to under
under-
of objectivity in ethics is the distinction between stand what constitutes a good argument. We can do
intrinsic and instrumental goods. Instrumental this by looking at an argument’s basic structure.
goods are things that are useful as instruments or This is the structure not only of ethical arguments
tools—we value them as means toward some other about what is good or right but also of arguments
end. Intrinsic goods are things that have value in about what is the case or what is true.
themselves or for their own sake. For example, we Suppose you are standing on the shore and a perper-
might say that life is an intrinsic good and funda- son in the water calls out for help. Should you try to
mentally valuable. But food is an instrumental good rescue that person? You may or may not be able to
because it is a means or tool that is used to sup- swim. You may or may not be sure you could rescue
port life. From Ruse’s perspective, morality itself is the person. In this case, however, there is no time
merely an instrumental good that is used by evolu- for reasoning, as you would have to act promptly.
tion for other purposes. Morality is, from this perper- On the other hand, if this were an imaginary case,
spective, simply a tool that helps the human species you would have to think through the reasons for
to survive. The selfish gene hypothesis of Richard and against trying to rescue the person. You might
Dawkins understands individual human beings conclude that if you could actually rescue the perper-
instrumentally, as carriers of genetic information: son, then you ought to try to do it. Your reasoning
“We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly might go as follows:
programmed to serve the selfish molecules known
as genes.” 9 This runs counter to our usual moral Every human life is valuable.
view, which holds that human beings have intrinsic Whatever has a good chance of saving such a life
or inherent value. The idea that some things have should be attempted.
My swimming out to rescue this person has a good
intrinsic value is an idea that is common to a variety
chance of saving his life.
of approaches that claim that ethics is objective. The
Therefore, I ought to do so.
intrinsic value of a thing is supposed to be an objec-
tive fact about that thing, which has no relation to
Or you might conclude that you could not save this
our subjective response to that thing. Claims about
person, and your reasoning might go like this:
intrinsic value show up in arguments about human
rights and about the environment. Do human
beings, ecosystems, or species have intrinsic value, Every human life is valuable.
Whatever has a good chance of saving such a life
or is the value of these things contained within our
should be attempted.
subjective responses and in their instrumental uses?
In this case, there is no chance of saving this life
This question shows us that the metaethical theories because I cannot swim.
are connected to important practical issues. Thus, I am not obligated to try to save him (although,
if others are around who can help, I might be
ETHICAL REASONING AND ARGUMENTS obligated to try to get them to help).
It is important to know how to reason well in think-
ing or speaking about ethical matters. This is helpful Some structure like this is implicit in any ethi-
not only in trying to determine what to think about cal argument, although some are longer and more
controversial ethical matters but also in arguing for complex chains than the simple form given here.
something you believe is right and in critically eval- One can recognize the reasons in an argument by
uating positions held by others. their introduction through key words such as since,

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
10 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

because, and given that. The conclusion often con- what lying actually is. Must it be verbal? Must one
tains terms such as thus and therefore. The reasons have an intent to deceive? What is deceit itself?
supporting the conclusion are called premises. In a Other conceptual issues central to ethical arguments
sound argument, the premises are true and the con- may involve questions such as, “What constitutes a
clusion follows from them. In the case presented ear
ear- ‘person’?” (in arguments over abortion, for exam-
lier, then, we want to know whether you can save ple) and “What is ‘cruel and unusual punishment’?”
this person and also whether his life is valuable. We (in death penalty arguments, for example). Some-
also need to know whether the conclusion actually times, differences of opinion about an ethical issue
follows from the premises. In the case of the earlier are a matter of differences not in values but in the
examples, it does. If you say you ought to do what meaning of the terms used.
will save a life and you can do it, then you ought to Ethical arguments often also rely on factual
do it. However, there may be other principles that claims. In our example, we might want to know
would need to be brought into the argument, such whether it was actually true that you could save
as whether and why one is always obligated to save the drowning person. In arguments about the death
someone else’s life when one can. penalty, we may want to know whether such pun-
To know under what conditions a conclusion ishment is a deterrent. In such a case, we need
actually follows from the premises, we would need to know what scientific studies have found and
to analyze arguments in much greater detail than whether the studies themselves were well grounded.
we can do here. Suffice it to say, however, that the To have adequate factual grounding, we will want to
connection is a logical connection—in other words, seek out a range of reliable sources of information
it must make rational sense. You can improve your and be open-minded. The chapters in Part II of this
ability to reason well in ethics first by being able to book include factual material that is relevant to ethi-
pick out the reasons and the conclusion in an argu- cal decisions about the topics under consideration.
ment. Only then can you subject them to critical It is important to be clear about the distinction
examination in ways we suggest here. between facts and values when dealing with moral
conflict and disagreement. We need to ask whether
Evaluating and Making Good Arguments we disagree about the values involved, about the
Ethical reasoning can be done well or done poorly. concepts and terms we are employing, or about the
Ethical arguments can be constructed well or con- facts connected to the case.
structed poorly. A good argument is a sound argu- There are various ways in which reasoning can
ment. It has a valid form in which the conclusion go wrong or be fallacious. We began this chapter by
actually follows from the premises, and the prem- considering the fallacy of begging the question
ises or reasons given for the conclusion are true. An or circular argument. Such reasoning draws on
argument is poorly constructed when it is fallacious the argument’s conclusion to support its premises,
or when the reasons on which it is based are not as in “abortion is wrong because it is immoral.”
true or are uncertain. An ethical argument always Another familiar problem of argumentation is the
involves some claim about values—for example, ad hominem fallacy. In this fallacy, people say
that saving a life is good. These value-based claims something like, “That can’t be right because just
must be established through some theory of values. look who is saying it.” They look at the source of the
Part I of this book examines different theories that opinion rather than the reasons given for it. You can
help establish basic values. find out more about these and other fallacies from
Ethical arguments also involve conceptual and almost any textbook in logic or critical thinking.
factual matters. Conceptual matters are those that You also can improve your understanding of ethi-
relate to the meaning of terms or concepts. For cal arguments by making note of a particular type of
example, in a case of lying, we would want to know reasoning that is often used in ethics: arguments

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Chapter 1 ❮❮ Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 11

from analogy. In this type of argument, one com-

pares familiar examples with the issue being disputed. Ethical Theory
If the two cases are similar in relevant ways, then
whatever one concludes about the first familiar case
one should also conclude about the disputed case.
For example, Judith Jarvis Thomson (as discussed Ethical Principle
in Chapter 11) once asked whether it would be ethi-
cally acceptable to “unplug” someone who had been
attached to you and who was using your kidneys
to save his life. If you say that you are justified in Ethical Judgment
unplugging, then a pregnant woman is also justified
in doing the same with regard to her fetus. The reader
is prompted to critically examine such an argument
by asking whether or not the two cases were similar We can think of the diagram as a ladder. In prac-
in relevant ways—that is, whether the analogy fits. tice, we can start at the ladder’s top or bottom. At the
Finally, we should note that giving reasons to top, at the level of theory, we can start by clarifying
justify a conclusion is also not the same as giving for ourselves what we think are basic ethical values.
an explanation for why one believes something. We then move downward to the level of principles
A woman might explain that she does not sup- generated from the theory. The next step is to apply
port euthanasia because that was the way she was these principles to concrete cases. We can also start
brought up or that she is opposed to the death pen- at the bottom of the ladder, facing a particular ethical
alty because she cannot stand to see someone die. choice or dilemma. We can work our way back up the
To justify such beliefs, one would need rather to give ladder, thinking through the principles and theories
reasons that show not why one does, in fact, believe that implicitly guide our concrete decisions. Ultimately
something but why one should believe it. Nor are and ideally, we come to a basic justification, or the
rationalizations justifying reasons. They are usually elements of what would be an ethical theory. If we
reasons given after the fact that are not one’s true look at the actual practice of thinking people as they
reasons. Rationalizations are usually excuses, used develop their ethical views over time, the movement
to explain away bad behavior. These false reasons is probably in both directions. We use concrete cases
are given to make us look better to others or our- to reform our basic ethical views, and we use the basic
selves. To argue well about ethical matters, we need ethical views to throw light on concrete cases.
to examine and give reasons that support the con- An example of this movement in both directions
clusions we draw. would be if we start with the belief that pleasure
is the ultimate value and then find that applying
ETHICAL THEORY this value in practice leads us to do things that are
Good reasoning in ethics usually involves either contrary to common moral sense or that are repug-
implicit or explicit reference to an ethical theory. An nant to us and others. We may then be forced to
ethical theory is a systematic exposition of a par par-- look again and possibly alter our views about the
ticular view about what is the nature and basis of moral significance of pleasure. Or we may change
good or right. The theory provides reasons or norms our views about the rightness or wrongness of some
for judging acts to be right or wrong; it provides a particular act or practice on the basis of our theo-
justification for these norms. These norms can then retical reflections. Obviously, this sketch of moral
be used as a guide for action. We can diagram the reasoning is quite simplified. Feminists and others
relationship between ethical theories and moral deci- have criticized this model of ethical reasoning, partly
sion making as follows. because it claims that ethics is governed by general

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
12 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

principles that are supposedly applicable to all ethi- That was good because it helped Jim develop his
cal situations. Does this form of reasoning give due self-esteem—or it was bad because it caused Jim
consideration to the particularities of individual, to believe things about himself that were not true.
concrete cases? Can we really make a general judg- (Consequences)
ment about the value of truthfulness or courage that
will help us know what to do in particular cases in Although we generally think that a person’s motive
which these issues play a role? is relevant to the overall moral judgment about his
or her action, we tend to think that it reflects primar
primar-
TYPES OF ETHICAL THEORY ily on our moral evaluation of the person. We also
In Part I of this book, we consider the following types have good reasons to think that the results of actions
of moral theory: egoism and contractarianism, utili-
utili matter morally. Those theories that base moral judg-
tarianism, deontological ethics, natural law, virtue ments on consequences are called consequentialist
ethics,, and feminist ethics. These theories differ in or sometimes teleological moral theories (from the
terms of what they say we should look at in mak- Greek root telos, meaning “goal” or “end”). Those
ing moral judgments about actions or practices. For theories that hold that actions can be right or wrong
example, does it matter morally that I tried to do the regardless of their consequences are called noncon-
right thing or that I had a good motive? Surely it sequentialist or deontological theories (from the
must make some moral difference, we think. But sup- Greek root deon, meaning “duty”).
pose that in acting with good motives I violate some- One moral theory we will examine is utilitari-
one’s rights. Does this make the action a bad action? anism. It provides us with an example of a conse-
We would probably be inclined to say yes. Suppose, quentialist moral theory in which we judge whether
however, that in violating someone’s rights, I am an action is better than alternatives by its actual or
able to bring about a great good. Does this justify the expected results or consequences; actions are then
violation of rights? Some theories judge actions in judged in terms of the promotion of human hap-
terms of their motive, some in terms of the character piness. Kant’s moral theory, which we will also
or nature of the act itself, and others in terms of the examine, provides us with an example of a non-
consequences of the actions or practices. consequentialist theory, according to which acts are
We often appeal to one of these types of reason. judged right or wrong independently of their conse-
Take a situation in which I lie to a person, Jim. We quences; in particular, acts are judged by whether
can make the following judgments about this action. they conform to requirements of rationality and
Note the different types of reasons given for the human dignity. The other ethical theories that we
judgments. will examine stress human nature as the source of
what is right and wrong. Some elements of these
theories are deontological and some teleological. So,
also, some teleological theories are consequentialist
Motive Act Consequences
in that they advise us to produce some good. But if
the good is an ideal, such as virtue or self-realization,
then such theories differ from consequentialist the-
ories such as utilitarianism. As anyone who has
That was good because you intended to make Jim
tried to put some order to the many ethical theories
happy by telling him a white lie—or it was bad
knows, no theory completely and easily fits one clas-
because you meant to deceive him and do him harm.
(Motive) sification, even those given here. Feminist theories
That was good because it is good to make people of care provide yet another way of determining what
happy—or it was bad because it is always wrong to one ought to do (see Chapter 9). In Part II of this
tell a lie. (Act) text, we will examine several concrete ethical issues.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Chapter 1 ❮❮ Ethics and Ethical Reasoning 13

As we do so, we will note how various ethical theo- Most moral philosophers think that a course on
ries analyze the problems from different perspectives ethics is ethically useful. It should help students
and sometimes reach different conclusions about understand the nature of ethical problems and help
what is morally right or wrong, better or worse. them think critically about ethical matters by pro-
viding conceptual tools and skills. It should enable
CAN ETHICS BE TAUGHT? them to form and critically analyze ethical argu-
It would be interesting to know just why some col- ments. It is up to the individual, however, to use
lege and university programs require their students these skills to reason about ethical matters. A study
to take a course in ethics. Does this requirement of ethics should also lead students to respect oppos-
stem from a belief that a course in ethics or moral ing views because it requires them to analyze care-
philosophy can actually make people good? fully the arguments that support views contrary to
When asked whether ethics can be taught, stu- their own. It also provides opportunities to consider
dents have given a variety of answers. “If it can’t be the reasonableness of at least some viewpoints that
taught, then why are we taking this class?” a stu- they may not have considered.
dent wondered. Another student responded, “Look In this opening chapter, we have learned some-
at the behavior of certain corporate executives who thing about what the philosophical study of ethics
have been found guilty of criminal conduct. They is. We have considered a few metaethical issues. We
surely haven’t learned proper ethical values.” Still have provided a description of ethical reasoning and
others disagreed with both views. Although certain arguments. We have briefly considered the nature of
ideals or types of knowledge can be taught, ethical ethical theories and the role they play in ethical rea-
behavior cannot be taught because it is a matter of soning. We will examine these theories more care-
individual choice, they said. fully in the chapters to come, and we will see how
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato thought that they might help us analyze and come to conclusions
ethics could be taught. He argues that “All evil is about particular ethical issues.
ignorance.” In other words, we do what is wrong The reading selections for this chapter come from
because we do not know or believe it is wrong; and David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, first pub-
if we truly believe that something is right, we should lished in 1739, and from C. L. Stevenson, a philoso-
necessarily do it. Now, we are free to disagree with pher associated with the Anglo-American tradition
Plato by appealing to our own experience. If I know in twentieth-century philosophy. The excerpt from
that I should not have that second piece of pie, does Hume discusses the problem of deriving normative
this mean that I will not eat it? Ever? Plato might claims from descriptive claims, the problem of deriv-
attempt to convince us that he is right by examining ing an ought from an is, with a particular focus on
or clarifying what he means by the phrase to know. the question of the morality of incest. Stevenson dis-
If we were really convinced with our whole heart cusses the difficulty of connecting ethics and natural
and mind that something is wrong, then we might science, while also outlining an emotivist approach
be highly likely (if not determined) not to do it. to understanding ethical terms.
However, whether ethics courses should attempt to
convince students of such things is surely debatable. NOTES
Another aspect of the problem of teaching ethics
concerns the problem of motivation. If one knows 1. Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality
something to be the right thing to do, does there still (New York: Macmillan, 1929), p. 4.
remain the question of why we should do it? One 2. E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
way to motivate people to be ethical may be to show (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975).
them that it is in their own best interest to do the 3. E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA:
right thing. Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 2.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
14 PART ONE ❯❯ ETHICAL THEORY

4. See Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: 6. G. E. Moore, Principia Ethics (Buffalo, NY:
Oxford University Press, 1989). Prometheus, 1903).
5. See Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of 7. W. D. Ross, Foundations of Ethics (Oxford:
Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals Clarendon Press, 1939), pp. 144–45.
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996). 8. Michael Ruse, Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense?
Also see Morton Hunt, The Compassionate Beast: (New York: Springer, 1985), p. 237.
What Science Is Discovering about the Human 9. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th
Side of Humankind (New York: William Morrow, Anniversary Edition (Oxford: Oxford University
1990). Press, 2006), p. xxi.

R E A D I N G
Ethical Judgments and Matters of Fact*
DAV I D H U M E

For more chapter resources and activities, go to MindTap.

Study Questions
As you read the excerpt, please consider the following questions:
1. How does Hume employ the fact of animal incest to advance his argument that morality does not consist merely
of “matters of fact” and that morality is not merely an “object of reason”?
2. Explain Hume’s idea that morality is a matter of feelings and sentiments.
3. Why does Hume have a problem with deducing an ought from an is?

I would fain ask any one, why incest in the human

species is criminal, and why the very same
action, and the same relations in animals have
or praise: But still this discovery supposes a separate
being in these moral distinctions, and a being, which
depends only on the will and appetite, and which,
not the smallest moral turpitude and deformity? If both in thought and reality, may be distinguished
it be answered, that this action is innocent in ani- from the reason. Animals are susceptible of the same
mals, because they have not reason sufficient to relations, with respect to each other, as the human
discover its turpitude; but that man, being endowed species, and therefore would also be susceptible of
with that faculty which ought to restrain him to his the same morality, if the essence of morality con-
duty, the same action instantly becomes criminal to sisted in these relations. Their want of a sufficient
him; should this be said, I would reply, that this is degree of reason may hinder them from perceiv-
evidently arguing in a circle. For before reason can ing the duties and obligations of morality, but can
perceive this turpitude, the turpitude must exist; and never hinder these duties from existing; since they
consequently is independent of the decisions of our must antecedently exist, in order to their being per
per-
reason, and is their object more properly than their ceived. Reason must find them, and can never pro-
effect. According to this system, then, every animal, duce them. This argument deserves to be weighed,
that has sense, and appetite, and will; that is, every as being, in my opinion, entirely decisive.
animal must be susceptible of all the same virtues
and vices, for which we ascribe praise and blame
From David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature, (1739; Project
to human creatures. All the difference is, that our Gutenberg, 2010), bk. III, pt. 1, sec. 1, http://www.gutenberg.org/
superior reason may serve to discover the vice or files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm
virtue, and by that means may augment the blame *Title supplied by the editor.

Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
 The men who were working the ships’ guns were from little villages,
from pretty sea-shore hamlets like these themselves. They were not thinking
of the habitations which were being blasted away. It was an operation of
war. This was the chosen time, and this the chosen place, for the landing of
the army that waited in the gloom of the sea for them to make the shore safe
for it.
With their brooms of steel and fire, they simply were sweeping clear the
floor on which that army was to set its foot.
Far in shore of the flame-torn cruisers, safe from any land-fire under the
parabolas of the naval projectiles as if they were under a bombproof arch,
certain little vessels had toiled up and down from the beginning. Slowly, for
they dragged between them long wire cables that hung down to the sea-
bottom, they moved back and forth along the beach, fishing.
The fish they were trying to catch were spherical and conical steel fish
that bore little protuberances on their tops like the sprouting horns of a
yearling kid.
A touch as soft as the touch of a lover’s hand could drive those little
horns inward, to awaken a slumbering little devil of fulminate of mercury,
whose sleep is so light that a mere tap will break it. And the fulminate’s
explosion would detonate three hundred pounds of gun-cotton.
The submarine mine says to the big ships: “I am Death!” And they
cannot answer it.
Guns That Were Being Made Too Late
But there is an answer to the mine. It is the mine-sweeper that drags for
them. The men on these mine-sweepers dedicate themselves to the tomb.
Some must inevitably perish. They will find a mine with their keels instead
of their groping drags; or they will grapple one too close; or their wire cable
will clutch two mines and swing them together, so that the little horns touch
—
But, if the mine-sweepers are permitted to work on, the mines may kill,
and kill, and kill, yet in the end they will be gathered in.
There is an absolute answer to the mine-sweepers. It is to hammer them
with rapid fire from the shore. These little vessels, dragging laboriously,
present targets that scarcely move. No artillerist can miss them.
 But again there is an answer to the mine-protecting guns. It is long-range
fire from the ships that lie safely outside of the mine-fields.
There is only one answer to that. It is for defenders on land to plant huge
guns far inland that can reach the ships and beat them back that they dare
not come close enough to reach the lesser shore artillery nearer the sea.
This formula of shore-defense is a formula so simple that a
mathematician, given the conditions, can work it out with simple arithmetic
though he never had seen a cannon in his life.
Guns, guns, and again guns—and an army to protect them! This was the
only possible reply to the fleet that was pounding the coast. The United
States had not enough sufficiently powerful mobile coast guns and siege
guns. It had not enough artillerists to fight what guns there were. And it had
not enough ammunition to provide them with food.[28]
In Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; up the Hudson, in smoky Watervliet; in
Hartford and Bridgeport and New Haven, and a dozen other towns, with
machinery hastily assembled, and workmen hastily learning, they were
trying, now, to make projectiles enough, and guns enough. They were trying
to make enough powder, down in Delaware and New Jersey.
In the encampment of the United States army at that moment trains were
delivering guns—guns made in record time, magnificent testimony to
American efficiency under stress. But the guns were coming in one by one
—to meet an enemy who was beating at the gates and could not be stopped
except with hundreds.
The Enemy on the Mainland!
Even then the flag-ship off the coast was sputtering a code into the night.
It was a long code, but its meaning was short. It meant: “Now!”
The mine-sweepers hauled their gear and came out. Fourteen had gone
in. Those that came out were nine.
Before they had well begun to move, the beach was white with ships’
boats, and nine hundred bluejackets and marines set foot on the mainland of
the United States.[29]
With sharpened knives in their sheaths, and loaded carbines, and
bandoleers filled with cartridges, and entrenching tools and provisions, each
man of that first force presented the highest attainable unit-efficiency for
war.
The boats were scarcely off the beach, to return to the ships, before eight
hundred of these units were trotting through the up-land, throwing out
advance parties, and making hasty trenches from which, in a moment, there
looked the greyhound muzzles of machine-guns.
On the shore, the strand-party was sinking sand-anchors and rigging
derricks. Others were setting together the five and one-half foot sections of
jointed hollow masts for the wireless. When the boats beached again, with
more men, two 40-foot masts reached into the night, and hand-power
generators were making the antennæ pulse with their mysterious life.
Launches came in now, dragging wide, flat-bottom pontoons and
swinging them on to shore and speeding back for more. Men snatched at
them, and held them in the surf, and ran their mooring up the beach, while
others carried out kedges and boat-anchors from all sides to make them lie
steady in the groundswell.
The beach shone white as day, all at once. The destroyers had steamed
in, and were giving their men aid with their search-lights.
In swung more pontoons. Broadside to broadside, kedged and anchored
out, they were moored out into the sea, at half a dozen parts of the beach.
Laid far enough apart that they should not touch, however hard the swell
might strive to grind them together, they formed floating piers, reaching
beyond the farthest outer line of surf. From pontoon to pontoon ran gang-
planks, lashed fast.
Three hours had passed. Three times the ships’ boats had made the trip
between warships and shore—thirty naval service cutters, each carrying
thirty men. Twenty-seven hundred sailors, marines and soldiers were
holding the Rhode Island coast.[30]
From the trenches of the advance party a wireless spoke to the cruiser
bearing the senior officer. “Motor scouts reported in front, on road, three
thousand yards in. Will fire rocket indicating direction.”
The rocket burst. For a minute it made all that part of the black country
stand out as under lightning. “Crash!” said the ship. Over the bluejackets
swept the shells, and burst.
“Crash!” said another ship.
 “Apparently effective,” said the wireless again. “Shall send patrols
forward.” And again it spoke, in half an hour: “Enemy driven back. Our
patrols hold road. Barb wire entanglements completed. Scouts in. Report
land clear, except for enemy cavalry in force inland out of range.”
The Transports
“Now!” said the cruiser’s wireless, speaking once more into the sea.
Silent, formless, black, four vast ships, long and twice as tall as the
cruisers, came slowly in among them.
These were the transports, sealed that not a thread of light should shine
from them to betray them to the thing that all the fleet dreaded more than
anything else—the under-water lance of a submarine’s torpedo.
Under water the submarine is always blind, even when the brightest light
of the noon-day sun shines vertically into the ocean. It can see only with its
periscope eye above the surface.
At night the periscope cannot see. Then the submarine ceases to be
useful as a submarine. It can act still; but only on the surface, like any other
torpedo boat.
Two score destroyers, each of thirty knots, each armed with from four to
ten 3-inch guns and rapid-firers, circled around the transports. Twice as
swift as the surface-speed of the swiftest submarine, armed
overwhelmingly, they could defy surface attack.[31]
They hemmed the darkened troop-ships round with a great circle of
search-lights, all thrown outward, that served the double purpose of
illuminating the ocean for miles, and of blinding any who tried to approach.
No human eye looking into that glare could have seen the transports, even if
the night had not shrouded them.
Still, these liners with their tens of thousands of men, were too precious
to be protected only by this bright vigilance. From each transport there
projected long steel booms, eleven to a side. These held out a half-ton net of
steel grommets. Stretched fore and aft as taut as steam-capstans could haul
it, this shirt of
 “He steered his craft, awash, from behind Fisher’s Island,
at dawn.”

chain-mail hung far down into the sea to catch any torpedo that might come
driving at the keel.
There was more protection than that. It would be day soon, and then the
submarines would be blind no longer. All around the area chosen for the
transports to lie in, the fishing boats taken from the sea-islands were being
towed by destroyers, to drop their nets. Their wooden buoys formed odd
geometrical outlines on the sea.
These thin things of meshed twine, made only to hold little, inoffensive
fish, were suspended like submarine fences, north and south and east and
west of the field of operations.
That such trivial things should be of any avail against under-water craft
with death in their heads, might well have seemed absurd to a landsman.
They did not seem absurd to the Lieutenant who commanded United States
submarine M-9, when he steered his craft, awash, out from behind Fisher’s
Island Sound at dawn, and looked eastward through his glasses.[32]
Ten miles away lay the transports, quite motionless, beautifully
assembled as a target for him. At that distance their masts and funnels
seemed huddled. He had a vivid picture in his mind, for an instant. It was a
picture of fat, slow sheep crowding together with a wolf among them.
Woven Twine Versus Submarine M-9
 But between them and his wolf lay the net buoys, dotting all the surface,
in and out as if they had been laid by some laboring artist to make a maze.
The sea-wolf went slowly nearer. With its tanks full of water, it lay so far
submerged that the sea washed the coaming around the manhole hatch. The
Lieutenant was like a man wading breast-high in the ocean. It would be
hard to see him from any distance.
He studied the traceries of buoys. There were spaces between them, that
betokened gaps in the fences. One might find a gap and go through.
But to find a gap, the submarine must raise her periscope above water,
and look around. But at each gap, sweeping incessantly to and fro, like
galloping cavalry, were destroyers.[33]
Could one dive and go through blind? The Lieutenant knew the
limitations of his terrible little animal. Its kiss could draw a twenty thousand
ton ship into the abyss, but the woven twine would laugh at it.
Its nose could cut through them like the threads that they were. But the
torn ends would catch conning tower and masts and periscope tubes. Even
if it tore away from them, the whirl of the propellor remained to renew the
danger, sucking the trailing cords to itself and in one instant switching them
around and around the spinning shaft.
With the propellor blocked, the submarine must rise; for only with its
propellor thrusting and its horizontal fins set to hold it down, can the
submarine stay under. It submerges, not by sinking but by diving with main
strength.
Another rather vivid picture flashed into the Lieutenant’s mind. It was
not a picture, this time, of a wolf among sheep. It was a picture of a sudden
enormous commotion among those quiet net-buoys, as of something
struggling down below; and then of a violent surge as the tangled nets were
dragged to and fro by a helpless submarine, held fast by the tail.[34]
A breeze arose with the rising sun, and the water roughened. The
submarine stopped. It could not meet rough water while it was awash.
Although its buoyancy when it was sealed was such that its propellor had to
thrust full speed to make it dive, yet with its hatches open two hundred
gallons of water, far less than is contained in a single big wave, would send
it down like a tin can.[35]
 The Commander held on as long as he could, watching the whitening
water in the east, and watching the transports.
He saw that at a thousand yards’ distance around them (just what he
would have chosen as neat torpedo range), there lay a little fleet of gun-
boats, all thrusting out booms with steel nets, that made them look oddly as
if they were hooped and wide-skirted. Disposed in an oval, they guarded the
transports with a second wall of steel wire.
And overhead, soaring in spirals, never flying far away, and always
returning, were three naval planes. The Commander of the M-9 knew that
they were waiting and watching for just one thing—the “shadow” of a
submerged submarine.[36]
This enemy, plainly, was taking no chances. The fleet had power and
time. It bent them to one object—to land its men safely. It would not engage
the harbor defenses, and so open itself to the risks of plunging fire and
torpedo attack. It would not blockade harbors, and so make itself a chosen
mark for such terrors as M-9.
The Three Harbor Gates to New York and Boston
Very scientifically, very thoughtfully, had the enemy staked out the vital
spot at which he had decided to strike. Here, facing each to each almost like
the salients of a fortification, lay three harbor gates to the northeastern
United States—Buzzards Bay, gashing deeply into Massachusetts:
Narragansett Bay, almost cutting Rhode Island in two: and the eastern
entrance to Long Island Sound and the cities of Connecticut.[37]
Open any one of these gates, and it opened the way at one blow to both
New York and Boston.
These three sea-salients were greatly armed for defense. In each harbor
lay batteries of 12-inch all-steel rifled cannon. Hidden under facings of
earth, steel and concrete, they sat on disappearing carriages and pneumatic
gun-lifts that would swing them up as if they weighed ounces instead of
tons, and instantly plunge them back again into cover after firing.
Deep under earth embankments, squatting in concrete-lined graves, 12-
inch mortars, sixteen to a group, stared upward at the patches of sky over
their heads, which was all that their men would see while they were firing,
however bitter the fight might be.
 A single shot from one of the long, graceful rifles might sink a ship, if it
were well placed. A single salvo from the mortars, the sixteen firing
together, assuredly would. And they could do it. Aimed by mathematics,
they were sure to strike the spot.[38]
A score of serving devices in the defenses were slaves to the steel
champions. Searchlights in armor waited like men-at-arms to point with a
long white finger at their prey. Mine fields and emplacements and cable
conduits were there to force the ships to steer where the guns could strike
them most surely. Masked by trees and mounds, concealed by every device
against betrayal, were range-finders and fire-control stations.
Here sat experts who had studied the most occult questions of arithmetic,
geometry, surveying, navigation, and cartography for one purpose—to
direct those long guns true. They were provided with exquisite instruments
for calculating angles and distances to an inch, though the point to be
ascertained were ten nautical miles and more away.
Before them lay charts of the sea-area that they were guarding. Let a
ship come within the limit of their apparatus, and in the time required to
speak into a telephone the gun-pits miles away down the defense-line would
crack with the explosion of tons of smokeless powder.
They were nearly perfect, those works—as engineering works. They
were fully armed with the engines to make them malignant to the ultimate
fatal degree. The ten-mile area of sea that lay so bright and dimpled that
morning might well have been black as the Wings of Death; for a few little
motions of the waiting men under the pretty grassy mounds would unfold
those pinions.
The Joint in America’s Armor
But under the iron visages was weakness. In none of the defenses on this
morning when the time had come for their test, were there more than one-
half the number of men required to hold them.[39]
They could fight the guns, so long as the action remained a ship-to-fort
action; but if the enemy attacked at the rear, from the land, they were not in
sufficient force to meet him and throw him back. Attacked from the land,
the men of the defenses would have to retire to the inner keep and fight
from shelter with rapid-fire guns. And when the defenses thus began to
defend themselves, their hour would have struck.[40]
 Still, for the time they were deadly. The enemy fleet paid them the
supreme tribute of scrupulous respect. Not a vessel ventured after dawn into
the deadly circle of their reach. To make sure that no vessel should expose
itself by accident, the mine-layers of the enemy fleet were even then
moving well outside of the zone of extreme fire, and laying immense steel
buoys, painted a vivid scarlet.
These scarlet buoys outlined an area of safety that was shaped somewhat
like a pentagon with its apex at Block Island and its base on the Rhode
Island coast between Watch Hill and Point Judith.
It was a base marking out five miles of beach that was safe both from the
fire of the Long Island Sound defenses and from the shots of the
Narragansett defenses.
Here day-light revealed a land occupied in orderly, quiet, perfect military
manner. Inland, as far as the naval guns could protect them, lay the men of
the advance landing party behind their machine-gun positions. For miles
beyond that, east and west, their patrols had cut telegraph and telephone
wires, and occupied points that commanded roads by which attacking forces
might approach.
 “For miles beyond that the enemy’s patrols had occupied
points....”

On the beach, where the blocks and tackle and hoisting derricks had
been rigged in the night, gun-floats were being brought to the beach with
cannon and caissons. Under the pull of centrifugal blocks these were
hoisted out and dropped in shore on railway tracks that led over the sand to
firm ground.
There motor trucks and traction engines, all brought to land during the
night, took them and hurried them to positions ready for fight, or to park
them ready for moving when the advance should begin.
Destroying the Railroad of Southern New England
From vantage points inland, from hills on Fisher’s Island, from such
venturesome spies as M-9, went the news to Washington, and so through
the land. The crowds in the cities, dense even at that early hour of the
morning, read on the bulletin boards:
“Enemy effected a landing during the night on Rhode Island between
Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound. Transports are now close in
preparing to put troops ashore. Scouts report four liners aggregating one
hundred thousand tons. Army officials estimate that at the usual allowance
of two men per ton this means fifty thousand men. More transports waiting
under Block Island.”
“Now is the time to strike ’em!” It was not one man in one crowd who
said it. In every city where there were crowds there arose these speakers—
the excitable, passionate orators who are born of every great crisis and who,
in such moments, find willing listeners.
“Now is the time to strike ’em, before they can bring more men ashore!
They should have been attacked in the night! What kind of Generals have
we got, to let ’em land, instead of throwing ’em back into the sea as fast as
they came? Where is our army? Keeping itself safe?”
The army, with ten thousand civilian workers impressed as they were
needed, was destroying the railroad of southern New England. It was
tearing up the shore line of the New York, New Haven and Hartford
Railroad from New Haven to New London and from New London to
Providence. It was throwing the rails on flat cars to be whirled away
westward and northward. Concrete and stone embankments, steel bridges,
and tunnels were sent skyward through the night with dynamite.
All the connecting system from New Haven north to Hartford and from
New London north to Worcester was being destroyed. Locomotives and
rolling stock that could not be removed were being sent down grades to
crash into wreckage, or blown up or set afire. A curious intoxication of
destruction was on the population that night. Prosperous, dignified citizens
came out with axes or with oil and fire, and helped in the ruin.
In fire and dirt and amid shattering roars of explosion and rumbling of
falling trestles they worked on hundreds of miles of iron highway,
desperately, frantically, shouting aloud, willing to tear their soft hands and
to risk limb and even life, rather than to wait inactive, and listen for news,
and dread what was to happen.
They were tearing up their civilization; and they did it with a savage
delight, that nothing might be left to the foe.
 The American Army’s Lack of “Eyes”
In the Army Headquarters, where a single short order had set loose all
this saturnalia of destruction, the Commanding General and his staff were
busied with something that was of more immediate importance to them.
Desperately they were thrusting out for information, and always they were
baffled by superior numbers, superior resources.
They had pushed cavalry toward the coast, and it had been driven back
by artillery and long-range fire from the ships, whose aim was controlled by
aeroplane signals from the sky and wireless from the shore. They had
pushed out motor scouts, and the artillery had found them. Always, at every
approach, during the night or since daylight, the ships’ fire had swept the
roads.
Now, scarcely an hour after sunrise, the army aeroplanes had come back,
after only haphazard scouting. They had not been able to fly over the
invaded coast. Wherever they tried it, they reported, they were met by
enemy planes in superior numbers.
One United States air-man had been driven by four enemy planes into
Narragansett Bay where he had been picked up by boats from the Newport
Torpedo Station. Two others, borne down by three enemy machines faster
than they, and fired at by anti-air-craft guns from an in-lying ship, had
barely managed to escape behind the defenses of Fort Wright in the Sound.
The others had been pressed back, inexorably, by the screen of naval
planes that swarmed over the coast.[41]
The enemy planes came from the sea. To the marveling eyes in the
American defenses, it seemed as if the ocean were spewing them forth. One
after another rose from the Atlantic under Block Island.
Three strange vessels lay there. They had funnels set extremely far aft,
like certain types of clumsy tramp-ships, but they were big as passenger
liners and their lines showed all the efficiency of the naval architect. The
great sweep of their decks forward was as bare as the deck of a racing
schooner yacht.
A structure on short trestles like a skid-way rose from this deck at the
bow, projecting slightly.
It was there that the aeroplanes were being spewed. These were mother-
ships.
 Torpedo-netted, guarded by destroyers, guarded even by a small semi-
rigid dirigible that hovered a thousand feet high over-head, they were
sending out spies to search the land.
Twenty-Five Aeroplanes Against a Swarm
The two United States fliers, standing by their machines in Fort Wright,
looked at the ascending swarm. “No wonder!” said one. “You know how
many one of those Nations had at last accounts? Twelve hundred!”[42]
“And we’ve got thirteen in the Army and twelve in the Navy!” His
companion laughed. “And Servia had sixty, before the Great War!”
They said no more, but watched in silence. That ascending, continually
growing line of flying things was like something that was writing into the
sky the word: “Resources!”
Suddenly the American air-men noticed that these new machines were
not flying to the coast near them. They were turning off, in regular order.
One turned west, to fly over Long Island. The next one turned east, toward
Buzzards Bay. They alternated thus till the entire division had separated,
and disappeared.
One of the scouts slapped his thigh. “I believe,” said he, “that they are
going to show themselves to Boston and New York!”
That was at nine o’clock in the morning. At noon the crowds in the two
cities were startled by a distant roar that grew, almost before they had first
heard it, into a thundering that shook the air. They stared upward and beheld
the first squadron of armed flying machines that America ever had seen.
 IV

THE COAST DEFENSES FALL

Armored, with the bright colors of the enemy on their under-bodies, the
aeroplanes from the enemy fleet flew low. What few anti-aircraft guns the
United States possessed were with the army. Around the peaceful American
cities were no encircling fortifications, no batteries, no military works that
might conceal marksmen. The air-men knew that there was nothing to fear.
They skimmed close to the State House on Boston’s Beacon Hill. They
flew over the tall municipal building of New York and dipped toward the
City Hall. They appeared over Providence and Fall River, over Brockton,
over Bridgeport and New Haven. They passed over every one of the
factory-cities of New Jersey that crowd to be near New York’s harbor.
Where they appeared it was as if they bore some instant charm to turn
the world to stone.

“They flew over the tall municipal building of New York.”

All the city noises stopped, dead. All motion stopped. Wheels stopped
turning and feet stopped moving and every white face was turned upward.
For that long moment of dumb fear, men saw nothing except the wide-
winged bodies. They heard nothing except the yelping and droning of the
hundred-horse-power motors over them.
Then they fled. Motor-men and drivers bent low, and yelled, and sent
their vehicles ahead blindly. The crowds rushed every door-way. They
fought for the protection of narrow cornices as if they were bomb-proofs.
They squeezed themselves close to the sides of buildings, and clung to
smooth iron and granite, and stared upward, waiting for bombs.
Instead of bombs, they saw things raining down gently, lightly—little
weighted pennants that circled downward in lovely spirals and dropped on
the streets with scarcely a sound.
Into every crowded street, into every open square of half a hundred cities
that day, the hostile air-men dropped these pennants.
They were printed. They bore proclamations addressed to the people of
America.
THE ENEMY’S PROCLAMATION
“Our armies have landed,” said the proclamation. “We shall advance on your cities at
once. Any attempt to defend them will mean their destruction. Civilians are warned against
making any demonstration, whether with arms or otherwise. Infractions of this Rule of War
will be punished by summary execution. Houses from which hostile acts are committed
will be destroyed. Towns whose civilian population resists will be destroyed. Take
warning!”

Recovering from their shock of fear, the first impulse of the Americans
who read these proclamations was one of rage. Their cities had grown
proud in unchallenged greatness. These pennants, slowly raining from their
sky, were infuriating insults.
Had the invader appeared in that moment, the people would have torn up
the paving blocks to fight him.
In the State House in Boston there were said the words that uttered the
emotion of all the cities along the Atlantic coast. In that old, rebellious
town, where American liberty had been nurtured in the very presence of an
armed foe, there were gathered many eminent citizens, with the officials,
the Mayor and the Governor of their State.
One of these officials had a pennant in his hands. “What can we do?” he
asked. “If we had all the militia of the State here, we would have less than
6,000 men. If the foe arrives, and lays his guns on the town—gentlemen,
they will be guns that fire high explosives and incendiary shells. We have
nothing to fight with. If the army cannot check him before he arrives, we
must—to save our people’s lives, we must surrender peaceably!”[43]
He turned to a man who bore a family name identified with Boston’s
history from the time of its settlement. His ancestors had stood in Faneuil
Hall with James Otis when he dedicated it to the cause of liberty.
“Let Us Destroy It!”
He took the proclamation, held it for a moment while he looked around
the circle, and then crumpled it suddenly, angrily, in his fist. Throwing it to
the floor, he set his foot on it.
“I say,” he cried with flashing eyes, “let him destroy it! Better still, let us
destroy it! When the enemy approaches, let us send our Boston town up in
flame and fragments! Let us leave him not so much as a rivet to pick up for
loot!”
There were many men there, of many minds. They had many interests to
guard, and many responsibilities to bear. But for a moment he carried them
with him. They waved their hands and shouted assent.
It was only for a moment. “If all thought like you!” said one, an old,
grave man. “But we have 700,000 people, and they are not soldiers or
philosophers. They’re human men. It is laid on us to protect them, at
whatever price to our National pride. If humiliation is the price that we
must pay for our past carelessness, why, gentlemen, we must pay it, bitter
though it is.”
So it was in New York, in Philadelphia, in a score of cities between and
around them. Everywhere was the first outburst of fury and unrecking
heroism, and then the sober second thought born not of cowardice but of
cold logic. This north-eastern Atlantic seaboard with its chain of twelve
million city dwellers, was no Holland to drown itself under its own sea in
order to destroy its foe. These cities were no Moscows, to devour
themselves in fire that the enemy might perish with them. This was the
United States of America, and this was the Twentieth Century—and the
men, no less brave, no less patriotic, faced the conditions of their place and
time.
They faced it from Portland, Maine, to the Capes of Virginia. If the army
could not stop the invader, they must fall.
 They formed committees of safety. They wrestled with their top-heavy
municipal machineries to make them answer the sharp need. Under the
stress, all the defects of their political rule stood out uncompromisingly, not
to be denied. Their over-staffed departments were lost in the ingenious
mazes of their own contriving. There was only one answer to the
inextricable, blind confusion. It was martial law.
Volunteers Who Could Not Even Be Shod
But here, too, there was inefficiency—inefficiency that had been
cultivated and tended, like a plant, by politics through the heedless years. In
the armories there were no reserve supplies of weapons or ammunition for
the volunteers who came to offer their services. Although the United States
government had given the States enough money annually for many years
back to equip them to full war-strength; and although the militia nowhere
had maintained even one-half of that strength, there were no reserves of
blankets, of uniforms, of tents, of cots. Doctors who offered their services
found that there was no place for them, because there were no ambulances,
no field hospitals, no surgical instruments, no anæsthetics and no
medicines. There had not been enough for the troops that took the field,
though every company had less men than even its insufficient peace
strength demanded.[44]
The volunteers could not even be shod. Those who were accepted had to
drill in their worthless street shoes, that never could survive the test of
rough roads and mud and water.
Politics! Politics! It stared the appalled citizens in the face wherever they
turned, as it had stared them in the face for a generation—but now they had
to look and see! It was politics that had left their State militias to blunder
along, each by itself, without agreement or settled plan. It was politics that
now had sent their plucky, intelligent, capable young men into the field
insufficiently equipped, trained or organized. It was politics that now left
their cities bare, to be made a sport of.
At the recruiting depots of the regular army it was politics again that
over-bore the recruiting officers with eager, courageous applicants whom
they could not use. What they needed now was men who were ready NOW
—not men who needed six months’ training. These applicants, offering
themselves by thousands, were city-born and city-bred. They were men who
never in all their lives had slept except under a roof; who never had lain in
rain and storm; who had been saved by their city from doing a dozen simple
things that men of the open do for themselves without a second thought.
Not one in a thousand of these volunteers ever had built a fire of sticks,
or pitched a tent or even washed dishes. Not one of five thousand ever had
held a gun in his hands. There were thousands there, and thousands again,
who did not even know what it was to be in the dark—for they had slept all
their lives in the electrically lighted city.
Needed—Not Men But Reserves!
It was not men that the regular army needed. It was reserves! And never
a Congress of all the Congresses that had talked and voted and appropriated
had voted a practical system of army reserves![45]
Of all the men who had been trained by previous army experience, the
War Department could not call on one unless he chose to volunteer. If those
men—invaluable to the country at this moment—offered themselves, they
offered themselves one by one, here and there and everywhere, scattered
through a land of three and a quarter million square miles. Enlisted thus,
they were futile individuals lost in hordes
 “The efficient, prepared, resourceful invader was landing
his army, not only without losing a man, but without getting
a man’s feet wet.”

of raw recruits. Could they have been called together by their government,
they would have formed perfect regiments, ready for instant, efficient,
priceless service.
While the United States, civilian and military, was working hopelessly to
make up in desperate hours for long years of waste, the efficient, prepared,
resourceful invader was landing his army, not only without losing a man,
but without getting a man’s feet wet. So perfect were the dispositions of this
expedition that the commander had been able to order, “Our troops must
land perfectly dry,” and the order was carried out.[46]
Every transport had three broad gangways to a side. Never for a moment
were these gangways bare of equipped men, moving file after file into the
enormous flat-bottomed landing barges. Never for a moment was the sea
without long tows of them, each bearing two hundred men to shore with
their rifles between their knees, ready.[47]
Preparedness Versus Unpreparedness
In the camp of the United States Army at that moment men were
breaking green horses for cavalry and artillery purposes. On the coast, the
enemy’s four-decked horse transports were sending trained mounts into
broad floats with derricks and slings, lowering away with head and tail lines
to prevent struggling, with nose lines to bridles to prevent them from
turning in the air, with men standing by below to put little bags of salt into
each horse’s mouth to quiet it as soon as it touched the floats.[48]
 Nothing had been forgotten, nothing left to be improvised. The horse-
floats had hinged sterns. Backed into the beach, these hinged boards
dropped down and formed gang-planks. Sailors threw collision mats on
them to prevent slipping. It required less than a minute to lower a horse
from the ships to the floats. In less than half a minute each horse was
unloaded from them and set ashore. To empty each float of its cargo of
twenty horses, and to have each craft off the beach and under tow again for
another load, was a matter of less than forty minutes.
Almost as swiftly, at another end of the beach, guns were being landed
from the same type of floats, shoal and wide-beamed, that could be run well
up on shore and could withstand the pounding of the surf. They brought
four light field pieces with their limbers to a load, or two heavy field
artillery pieces. They were landing field howitzers of calibers that the
United States Army did not possess. This artillery has been coming ashore
for hours. It had begun to come before dawn. Still there was more arriving.
Yet the beach never was occupied for a moment. The guns were rushed
inland, the men were rushed inland, the horses were rushed inland. Twelve
hours after the first landing party had prepared the way, Rhode Island was
occupied by 30,000 foot, 3,000 cavalry and 50 batteries of artillery—almost
two full divisions that lay in a great belligerent front snarling with guns—a
perfect, complex, often-assembled, often-tested machine.[49]
This was the time for the American army to strike, before the enemy
could increase his forces and move forward to attack.
But the American army was a complex machine that never had been
assembled before, or tested before. The Regular Army never had been
together with the Organized Militia, and the Organized Militias of the
various States never had seen each other. “An uncoördinated army of
allies,” its Commander had called it, “with all the inherent weakness of
allies, emphasized by the unusual number of allies.”[50]
The Uncoördinated and Unorganized American Army
It was an army of which neither the regulars nor the militia had been
organized into divisions at the time when it should have been done, the only
time when it could have been done—in the long days of peace. Until it was
so organized, it was an army only in numbers. For operation against a
prepared, organized enemy it was not an army but merely a multitude of
units, whose trained and perfect ones would inevitably be sacrificed to the
errors and weaknesses of the imperfect ones.[51]
The division is the true Weapon of War. It alone contains in vitally
correct proportion the various troops that must sustain each other when
cannons and explosives begin that arbitration from which there is no appeal
on earth. It is the division, and the division alone, that possesses all the
limbs and organs—the signal corps and cavalry that are the eyes and ears:
the infantry and engineers and sanitary corps that are the body and feet: and
the artillery that is the smiting fists.[52]
In the City Hall Park in New York, a speaker, lifted above the crowd that
watched the newspaper bulletins, was cursing the army amid savage cheers.
He cursed its Generals and its men because they did not fight. He cursed the
Government.
The crowd listened, and forgot that again and again they had been
warned that this would be if war should ever come.
With the blind wrath of helpless men they could reason only that at this
moment when everything should be done, nothing was being done. They
shouted approval when the frantic orator screamed: “Tell Washington to
order ’em to fight. Fight! Fight! That’s what they’re for!”
The crowds could perceive only that they had an army that did not strike
a blow. They could not know that the American commanders were fighting
a better fight just then by fighting to organize, than if they fought with guns.
They could not know that to these officers, grown gray in the service of
their country, this fight was more heart-breaking than it would have been to
fight in the hot blast of shells.
Regiments of Infantry Without a Single Cannon to Protect Them
To organize an army in the face of the foe is like organizing a fire
department when the streets of a city are already in flames. This is what the
Chiefs of the Army were trying to do—had been doing, day and night,
desperately, ever since the troops had come together. And in Washington, in
the archives of Congress, there were lying sheaves of reports, gathering
dust, that had demanded nothing except the chance to do it in time.
Here were regiments of militia so “organized” by their States that if they
were permitted to go into battle as they were, 170 companies of infantry
would face the enemy without a single cannon to protect them. Of all the
eastern militia cavalry in that camp, only one regiment had a machine gun
company.[53]
Even the regular army was efficient only in those things that could be
maintained and perfected by the steady, personal efforts of officers and
men. In everything that depended on legislation it was lacking. Instead of
150 men to a company of infantry some had only 65. Its troops of cavalry
were not full. It had no siege artillery corps. It was a skeleton army which,
according to optimists, was to be clothed with substance when war arrived.
Now war had come; and to clothe that skeleton with untrained men would
have meant that for every 65 skilled soldiers there would be 85 utterly
useless ones in each company.
Shortage of men was not the only curse that was laid on the army by the
policy of neglect. In the enemy headquarters, two or at the most three orders
were sent to department chiefs for every movement. In the American
headquarters, the staff had to deal with units. Every problem had to be
handled in detail by men who should have been free to direct one great,
comprehensive movement. Every order issued by the Commanding General
demanded intolerable duplication.
American Commanders Who Had Never Commanded
The General had under him commanders of brigade who had
commanded posts that contained only fragments of regiments. Their
brigades, never assembled in any one place, not only did not approximate to
war conditions, but had to be disrupted and divided and re-formed before
the General could dare to offer them in battle. Hardly a brigade commander
had under him troops that he had known and trained and handled himself.
[54]
With exception of those who had been on the Mexican border, when a
part of the small army had been mobilized in a body for the first time, these
men had tried to prepare themselves with the best that Congress would give
them—battalions and companies and single batteries instead of assembled
armies, because the politicians would not let the army come together.
The 49 army posts of the United States, long a subject of derision among
all except those who fattened on them, might well have been symbolized
now in that camp by forty-nine skeletons—a skeleton army waiting to lead
the other skeleton army to death.[55]
 To none was this better known than to the enemy. The invaders’
commander, standing idly with his hands in his pockets, was able to say
confidently: “They’ll not bother us seriously. The only thing they’ll do, the
only thing they can do, is to retreat when we begin to threaten them.”
He held in his grip the sea, the land and the air. In shore lay ships ready
to sweep part of his front with protective fire. On land his advance forces
had seized roads and railroads, his engineers were repairing what had been
destroyed, and his cavalry was guarding all approaches. His air-men,
overwhelmingly numerous, spied on the American army almost with
impunity, and parried with sure aerial thrusts all American attempts to spy
on their own lines.
The aerial guard, steel-breasted, with the wings of speed and talons of
fire, could be broken only by equal numbers, equally terrible. Individual
daring, individual skill, were nothing against this armored brood. Five times
American fliers rose to try it; and five times they were grappled in mid-air
and torn with shot, and dropped to the earth far below. “No more!” said the
General in command.
He sat with his chin in his hand, studying the dispatches that were laid
before him. They were piled high, though twenty operators and half a dozen
aides struggled to eliminate from the torrential confusion the news that
might be deemed most reliable.[56]
The “Fog of War”
There were messages from Washington, messages from coast defenses,
messages from patrols and outposts, from scouts and from company
commanders. There were wild reports of enemy invasion from places so far
inland that it was palpable that they could not be true. There were reports
from places so nearby that they might mean imminent danger.
Excited officials of towns and cities sent long, involved dispatches or
hung for long minutes to telephones to recount interminable tales.
One hundred thousand men had landed, according to spies who had
made their way into Fort Greble in the Narragansett defenses. It was two
hundred thousand, telephoned Providence, transmitting messages from the
coast. The army’s own scouts and spies and patrols, groping in insufficient
numbers and finding a wall of cavalry and foot and machine gun
detachments opposed to them everywhere, sent in estimates that varied all
the way from twenty-five thousand to eighty thousand.
These American advance detachments were striking the enemy outposts
east and west. Near Watch Hill three American motor cycle companies with
machine guns ambushed and cut up two troops of cavalry. American
cavalry drove back a battalion of engineers who had begun work on the
railroad at Kingston. At Niantic two American motor patrols ran into the
fire of a concealed field gun and were destroyed.
From Fort Michie on Gull Island came the news, brought by a Montauk
Point fisherman who had managed to make his way across the Sound in a
small boat, that men had landed on that end of Long Island. They had
destroyed all communication immediately and had seized the railroad
leading to New York; but it was impossible to guess how great this force
was.[57]
Only one certain fact was developed from all the news. It was that the
transports were unloading troops still.
The Enemy Moves
Suddenly, almost simultaneously, the American patrols were driven back
all along the line. On a front that extended quickly, irresistibly, clear across
Washington County, Rhode Island, from east to west, the invader army
expanded. It seized Watch Hill. Kingston was occupied in force. Wickford
Junction was occupied. Narragansett Pier was flooded, all at once, with men
and guns.
With the swiftness of a blow from a fighter’s fist, the invader had struck
and won the entire railroad system of the New York, New Haven and
Hartford Railroad in Rhode Island, and commanded the way to Providence.
The foe had filled his divisions. Forty thousand men were ready for
battle on American soil, with ten thousand in reserve on the coast.
Now the wind turned south-east. Point Judith, Rhode Island’s cape that
coast-wise mariners call The Fog-Hole, began to brew one of its April fogs,
gray and blind and wet.
Its first effect was kind to the Americans. The enemy air-craft, seeing the
vapory bank growing from the sea, fled toward their lines. From all
directions they came in, like gulls fleeing before a storm. They could not
dare to remain in strange territory. All their fine maps, all their ingenious
instruments, would be impotent against it. They came in, and alighted
behind their army.
Freed from them, and masked by the fog, the American scouts went
forward again and groped once more along the foe’s front. In an
MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE LANDING OF THE
ENEMY FORCES

A. Enemy Transports at Beach. The lines and arrows show

direction of his advance.
B. United States Army, withdrawn to a watching position.

hour field telephones and telegraphs and aerial told the American
commander enough to assure him that the enemy’s force in men was at least
nearly equal to his own. He knew, too, that the invader had brought up
preponderating artillery. Every road, every piece of negotiable country was
held by guns.
The American army held tight. In its front, between it and the foe, there
was not a rail-line, not a bridge. All had been destroyed. Behind it lay a
perfect railroad system, with long trains and giant locomotives under steam,
and all the gathered motor vehicles, ready to speed along perfect roads.
 So far the fog was kind to the defenders. But the invader, too, was quick
to seize its favor.
The Fishermen Who Caught More Than Lobsters
Long before, half a dozen men, dressed like fishermen, had made their
way out of Narragansett Harbor in a small sloop, and had reported at the
enemy headquarters. For a month or more past they had been fishing for
lobsters; but they had caught more than lobsters. Their catch lay on the table
in the Commander’s tent, in the form of charts with soundings and range
lines and distances. They were maps of the mine fields.
As soon as the fog began, these men went aboard a mine-sweeper. It
steamed eastward, followed by the others. The sweepers had more than the
cables and grapples that make a mine-sweeper’s outfit. Set in rows on the
after-deck of each vessel were bulging mines, filled with 300 pounds of
trinitrotol.[58]
The fog became so thick that it was hard to say if it were daylight still, or
night. Night could only make it more black. It could not increase the
obscurity.
In the coast defenses of Long Island Sound and Narragansett Bay every
man was straining eyes and ears and nerves. Every gun company was at its
weapon. Every gun was loaded. Tall projectiles stood ready with the chains
and grapples of the hoists prepared. Men stood waiting in the powder
magazines under the batteries.
Nothing to see or hear at Fort Wright on Fisher’s Island. Nothing at Fort
Michie on Gull Island. Nothing at Fort Terry on Plum Island. On all the
shrouded, swift tide-ways that led into Long Island Sound there was
nothing.
There was nothing in front of the Narragansett defenses that eyes could
see or ears could hear. Nothing—and then, far out, it was as if a sea-monster
had arisen in dying torment, and lashed, and spouted and screamed. Before
the riven column of water could fall, there came muffled, thundering
explosion under water—one, two, three!
The defenses split the fog with fire. Their mine-protecting batteries had
been trained over the fields long since. There was no need for aim. Instantly
they swept the hidden sea with shells that would clear twenty acres of
water.
 Again there was silence and blindness—the unearthly silence of the
Atlantic sea-fog. It lay for half an hour, as if there were no such thing as
war in the world.
Then once more came the roar and the crash, followed by its submarine
echoes. Once more the land-guns raved, firing blind.
Fighting Mines with Mines
The enemy was counter-mining. Instead of sweeping, his vessels were
dropping mines of their own in the fields, and then, backing off to avoid the
fire from the batteries if they could, they exploded them by electric contact,
to blow up the American mines with the shock.
Not all the mine-sweepers escaped mines or guns. But there were vessels
to spare, and lives to spare. All night the counter-mining went on, and all
night the American guns fired into the vapor and the darkness.
The sun arose invisibly. But it climbed, and when it had lifted all its disk
above the rim of sea, it showed through the mist as a pale illumination. It
was “burning off” the fog.
“It will be clear enough in an hour,” said the executive officer of a
battleship under Block Island. The vessel’s wireless began to speak.
On one of the mother-ships men brought out and assembled an armored
biplane. Its two fliers stowed range-finding apparatus, aerial telegraph,
aneroids and charts in it. There were signal flags and light, brightly silvered
balls. Men brought receptacles that contained bombs and adjusted them
carefully in place. The fliers waited, watching the fog.
It lessened. It tore away in rifts. All around, the ships became visible.
Seven battle-ships swung around and put on speed and rushed in echelon
toward the coast. They steered straight for the mouth of Narragansett Bay,
turned just outside of the zone of fire of its defenses, slowed down and
steamed across the mouth.
The bi-plane’s engine burst into life. The machine lifted and followed
them. It flew high over them and into the bay, climbing.
“They’re over it!” said an officer on a ship, looking at the machine
through his glasses.
Locating the Forts For the Enemy Ships
 Far inside of the bay, so high in air that it was little more than a shining
speck, the aeroplane was describing a series of regular, equal circles. All at
once, as if it had been painted in the air with a mammoth brush, a jet-black
descending streak stood out against the sky, and lengthened steadily toward
the earth.
The azimuth and other range-finding instruments at both ends of the
battle-ships caught

“The forward turret of a battleship turned and spoke with a

great voice.”

the angles and ascertained the range to the black smear that still hung in the
air, like grease. The aviator had dropped a smoke-bomb to indicate the fort
below.
The forward turret of a battleship turned, its hooded rifle lifted its
muzzle to an angle of fifteen degrees, and spoke with a great voice.
Eleven miles away a ton of steel rushed from the sky, crashed into the
water of the bay roaring, ricochetted, struck again half a mile beyond, and
again and again. Four times it rebounded, like a pebble, before it
disappeared at last; and each time it filled the air with its clamor, like a
suffering thing.[59]
The ships’ wireless caught a signal from the aeroplane. The shot had
fallen short. The battleship steamed on, and another one in line opened up
the mouth of the harbor and fired.
 From the aeroplane fell a silver ball. It glittered in the brightening sun,
splendid. “Hit!” went the message to the turret; and the crew there
embraced and cheered.
It had hit the outer earth-works of the defenses. It had plunged down
with a shock that stunned men in mortar pits and gun-emplacements far
away—small wonder, for this thing falling from the sky had struck a blow
equal to that of New York’s obelisk plunging into Broadway from the top of
Trinity Church steeple.[60]
“No Effect!”
“No effect!” reported the watchers in the coast defense to the
commandant. Though the impact had shaken the works and the very earth:
though the blast from the explosion of its charge had twisted three-inch iron
bars within the works, and bent the steel doors of casemates, it had done no
harm to the defenses. So well had they been built by the engineers that the
rending explosion left a crater for only a moment. The earth rippled down
and closed it. The steel and concrete facing underneath held true.[61]
The enemy had the range. Ship after ship passed the entrance, delivered
its single shot, proceeded and returned to follow in the circling line. These
were the most modern dreadnaughts, firing from 16-inch guns. Their shells
tore the earth embankments away in tons and flung dirt high in air and sent
it down to bury everything in its way under mounds. But all their fire and
all their havoc was in vain, unless they could hit a gun. And the guns were
protected by steel armor and concrete and earth piled on earth.
To hit a gun was to attempt to hit a bull’s eye only a few feet square at a
range of eleven miles, farther than men can see.
Still the bombardment went on, undeterred. More aeroplanes soared over
the defenses now, far out of reach from shots, and circled and signaled. The
fire grew. The ships were not hesitating now to wear out the rifling of their
guns. They meant to give the defenders no rest.
They were trying for a prize that was worth all the guns in their turrets.
They knew that inside of the works there could not be more than a few
thousand men, if that much. They knew that all the Coast Artillery forces of
the United States combined numbered only 170 companies and that these
170 companies had 27 harbor defense systems to guard. Even if the United
States had stripped its other defenses to the utmost, there could not be a
sufficient force in these that were now being attacked.[62]
Only Enough Ammunition to Last Two Hours
So they poured fire on fire and shot on shot. It was a one-sided duel, for
their great guns outranged the 12-inch guns of the defenses. The men in
there fired only occasionally, when their observers and range-finders and
plotters perceived an opportunity. There was another reason for their slow
fire, besides the inability to reach. Those perfect defenses, those perfect
products of engineering science, those results of millions on millions of
expenditure, contained only enough ammunition for two hours of firing![63]
They waited till the enemy ships should try to force the passage and
come within range, that they might make those two hours two hours of
unspeakable destruction that should glorify their death with the fiery
splendor of bursting ships.
The enemy did not try to force the passage. While they saved their
ammunition, these defenses were fearful gladiators to approach. None could
come within reach of their steel hands and live.
But the gladiators were gladiators fearful only in front. Steel-gauntleted,
armored with steel breast-plates and shin-plates, mightily visored—so they
faced the sea. In the back they were naked.
Fire, and noise, and bursting charges, and explosions that made hot gales
within the works and whirled men like dried leaves! An hour passed. Still
from the sea there came the coughing bellow, that made the air tremble and
rolled inland like summer thunder among hills. Still there fell the screaming
steel from the sky. Another hour! And still it came.
The sun was over-head. Suddenly, into the naked back of the defenses
poured fire and steel that hammered and beat and tore through them. Under
it, through flame and smoke and flying dirt appeared shining rows of
bayonets. With a yelp 10,000 men poured in.[64]
And through the United States, smiting it into the dumbness of despair,
went the news that the great Narragansett defenses had fallen, and that the
enemy fleet was entering the harbor.
 V

NEW ENGLAND’S BATTLE

America had lost Narragansett Bay, with all its defenses, great guns and
government stations, in less than two weeks after the declaration of war!
The generation that faced this disaster had faced many catastrophes
which had seemed great disasters. It had seen States razed by cyclones. It
had seen giant floods. It had seen magnificent cities thrown down by a
shaking earth. Unterrified, it had flung money and men to the stricken
places to make them whole. Destroyed cities rose in beauty almost before
the dust of their fall had ceased to veil the sun.
Money, money, money! Men, men, men! It seemed that no disaster could
be so colossal that the wonderful resources and efficiency of the United
States could not mock at it.
Before the news of Narragansett’s fall was an hour old, the cities of the
United States, including many towns so obscure that few Americans ever
had heard their names, had subscribed enough money to raise and equip an
army twice over and keep it in the field for months. But the country that
was so efficient, so intrepid, so resourceful, was facing a disaster now that it
could not conjure away with all the money and men that ever were.
Money, the magician, was futile now. It could not stamp its golden foot
and make guns and ammunition spring from the empty ground. It could not
send to the army in Connecticut cannon that did not exist or cartridges that
had not been made.[65]
Not Enough American Ammunition for Two Days’ Battle
An order had gone out from the American headquarters that morning—
an ominous warning that, given in battle, would have indicated, surely, the
beginning of the end. It was:
“IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT NO AMMUNITION BE
EXPENDED WITHOUT URGENT NEED. COMPANY COMMANDERS WILL
ENFORCE THIS ORDER RIGOROUSLY.”
 While the futile dollars were being flung to the Government for new
armies, the army that was already in the field was counting its small-arms
and artillery ammunition, knowing that it did not possess enough for two
days’ battle.[66]
From ocean to ocean men with naked hands were crowding to enlist. The
generous Nation that never yet had denied a need when the need was made
apparent, was as generous with its lives as with its dollars. For two and
three blocks around the recruiting stations of regular army and militia the
streets were packed with men. They had come from work and pleasure.
They had come home from far places. They had dropped shovels and
tennis-rackets, pens and picks. They stood shoulder to shoulder, in fine
stuffs and in rags, made equal by one loyal purpose. And they were as futile
as the dollars.
One million men, it was computed afterward, had offered themselves in
America in that one day. But there were no weapons for them. There were
not enough rifles. There were no uniforms. There were no tents. There were
no shoes.
Keen-eyed men of trails and wilderness offered themselves for the signal
corps. There were no signal corps supplies. Telegraphers were there, but all
the field telegraph outfits that the country had were with the army.
Teamsters volunteered, but there was no reserve of army wagons. Men
trained in bridge building and engineering were turned away, because there
was no equipment to fit out sorely needed companies of miners and sappers.
[67]
Cavalry was needed, urgently; and men who could ride tried to enlist.
But there were no mounts for them. Army officers in Texas and New
Mexico and Oklahoma were buying, at unheard-of prices, rough horses
wild from the range, while in Connecticut were regiments of regular cavalry
whose troops were only three-quarters filled with either men or horses.[68]
Money, money, money! Men, men, men! It was too late.
Newport’s Palaces Occupied by Enemy Officers
The bulletins still were displaying the news of the loss of Narragansett’s
defenses when the mine-sweepers of the enemy, unhampered now,
completed their work in the channels of the great harbor and signaled to
their fleet that it was safe to enter.
 The big liners crowded in—ships that hitherto never had entered an
American harbor except New York or Boston. Followed by horse-transports
and vessels laden with artillery, they passed in a gigantic parade past
Newport.
Only destroyers and light-draught gun-boats preceded them. There was
no further need of cruisers with shotted guns to protect them. The enemy
flag was flying over Forts Adam, Wetherill, Greble, Getty, and Philip
Kearney. The American guns which the garrison had not been able to
destroy now looked down the harbor to hold it for the invader against
American attack.
Newport’s villas and palaces were occupied by officers of the invading
army and navy. The avenues and gardens and shores of the rich men’s
pleasure-place were thronged with bluejackets and marines. The famous
power-boats, rich with mahogany and cedar, were brought out of their
opulent housings and launched. Glittering steam yachts were being eased
down the ways, to take the water and go into commission under the foreign
flag.
After the last of the ships had entered, an American sea captain, who had
been crouching in a hiding place on Sakonnet Point at the eastern entrance
to the harbor, clapped his telescope together, arose cautiously, and
straightened out his stiffened old limbs. Taking great care to select by-paths,
he went inland to the village of Little Compton, where he found an
automobile stage that took him to the railroad station at Tiverton.
Thence he telephoned to Fall River, and Fall River sent it on to Boston,
and Boston sent it on to Worcester, whence it went to the army, that an old
seaman had not only counted and identified the transports, but was able to
say approximately which ships had troops aboard and which vessels
probably carried only supplies.
There were liners of more than 40,000 gross tons. There were three ships
of more than 25,000 tonnage. Each of them was a famous liner whose
character was known to its last details. It was a matter of only a few
minutes to figure out that the net tonnage of the troop-laden vessels was
200,400. Under the foreign military allowance of one soldier for each two
net tons of ship capacity, it was indicated with fair accuracy that the force
that had entered the harbor was at least 100,000 men.[69]
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com