Ebook Ethics For Everyone A Skills Based Approach 1St Edition Larry R Churchill Online PDF All Chapter

Ethics for Everyone: A Skills-Based
Approach 1st Edition Larry R. Churchill

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ethics-for-everyone-a-skills-based-approach-1st-editio
n-larry-r-churchill/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Developing Writing Skills for IELTS A Research Based

Approach 1st Edition Sin Wang Chong
https://ebookmeta.com/product/developing-writing-skills-for-
ielts-a-research-based-approach-1st-edition-sin-wang-chong/
Difficult Decisions in Surgical Ethics An Evidence

Based Approach Vassyl A. Lonchyna (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/difficult-decisions-in-surgical-
ethics-an-evidence-based-approach-vassyl-a-lonchyna-editor/
Anesthesiology A Problem Based Learning Approach

Anaesthesiology A Problem Based Learning Approach 1st
Edition Tracey Straker (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/anesthesiology-a-problem-based-
learning-approach-anaesthesiology-a-problem-based-learning-
approach-1st-edition-tracey-straker-editor/
Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst
https://ebookmeta.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-hoerst/
Experiencing Speech A Skills Based Panlingual Approach
to Actor Training _ A Beginner s Guide to Knight
Thompson Speechwork 1st Edition Andrea Caban
https://ebookmeta.com/product/experiencing-speech-a-skills-based-
panlingual-approach-to-actor-training-_-a-beginner-s-guide-to-
knight-thompson-speechwork-1st-edition-andrea-caban/
Alma Richards Olympian 1st Edition Larry R. Gerlach
https://ebookmeta.com/product/alma-richards-olympian-1st-edition-
larry-r-gerlach/
Discovering Music Second edition R. Larry Todd
https://ebookmeta.com/product/discovering-music-second-edition-r-
larry-todd/
Business Ethics: What Everyone Needs to Know J. S.

Nelson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/business-ethics-what-everyone-
needs-to-know-j-s-nelson/
Stress Management for Life: A Research-Based

Experiential Approach, 5th Edition Michael Olpin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/stress-management-for-life-a-
research-based-experiential-approach-5th-edition-michael-olpin/
Ethics for Everyone
Ethics for Everyone
A Skills-Based Approach
L A R RY R . C H U R C H I L L
1
3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2020
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Churchill, Larry R., 1945– author.
Title: Ethics for everyone : a skills-based approach / Larry R. Churchill.
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2020. |
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2019040688 (print) | LCCN 2019040689 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190080891 (paperback) | ISBN 9780190080921 (epub) |
ISBN 9780190080914 (updf) | ISBN 9780190080907 (online)
Subjects: LCSH: Ethics.
Classification: LCC BJ1012 .C55 2020 (print) |
LCC BJ1012 (ebook) | DDC 170—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019040688
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019040689
This material is not intended to be, and should not be considered, a substitute for medical or
other professional advice. Treatment for the conditions described in this material is highly
dependent on the individual circumstances. And, while this material is designed to offer
accurate information with respect to the subject matter covered and to be current as of the
time it was written, research and knowledge about medical and health issues is constantly
evolving and dose schedules for medications are being revised continually, with new side
effects recognized and accounted for regularly. Readers must therefore always check the
product information and clinical procedures with the most up-to-date published product
information and data sheets provided by the manufacturers and the most recent codes of
conduct and safety regulation. The publisher and the authors make no representations or
warranties to readers, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of this material.
Without limiting the foregoing, the publisher and the authors make no representations or
warranties as to the accuracy or efficacy of the drug dosages mentioned in the material. The
authors and the publisher do not accept, and expressly disclaim, any responsibility for any
liability, loss, or risk that may be claimed or incurred as a consequence of the use and/or
application of any of the contents of this material
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by LSC Communications, United States of America
Contents
Acknowledgments xi
Introduction: Purpose and Uses 1

Why This Book? 1
How to Use This Book: Suggestions for Beginning Students,
Professional Students, Clinical Ethicists, and
General Readers 4
1. Dimensions of Moral Experience 9
Varieties of Moral Perplexity 9
Curiosity and Wonder as the Impetus for Ethics 10
Ethics Belongs to Everyone 12
The Humanizing Function of Ethical Dialogue 15
Ignorance, Learning (and Relearning) What Moral Values
We Hold 18
Ethics as Ongoing 20
Obstacles to Ethics 21
1. Moral Arbitrariness 21
2. Absolute Certainty 23
3. Perfectionism 25
The Aims of Ethics 26
Teaching, Learning, and “Catching” Ethics 28
2. Basic Skills I 31
Probing Skill: Interrogating Our Moral Prehistories 31
Decentering Skill: Taming Moral Vanity and
Recognizing Others 38
Relinquishing Skill: Giving Up the Comforts of
Moral Certainty 43
Emotional Skill: Learning from Our Feelings 47
Cognitive Skill: Thinking Slowly 50
viii Contents
3. Basic Skills II 53
Imaginative Skill: Expanding the Reach of Our Empathy 53
Assertive Skill: Claiming Our Own Moral Authority 56
Connective Skill: Linking Goodness and Happiness 59
Narrative Skill: Story-Making at Intersecting Life
Trajectories 61
4. Exercises Using the Skills 71
Nineteen Exercises in Eight Groupings 71
Curiosity about One’s Moral Sensibility 72
Broad Empathy 73
Conceptual Agility 73
Identifying Emotional Registers 74
Sensitivity to Suffering 75
Moral Certainty/Uncertainty 75
Moral Authority 76
Happiness 77
Assessing Responses 77
5. Some Common Pitfalls 79
The Trap of Either/Or Thinking 79
Expecting Too Much from Theory 81
The Desire for a Unifying Definition of Ethics 86
Restricting What Experiences Have Ethical Weight 89
Treating Mysteries as Moral Problems 92
6. Moral Concepts in Practice I 95
The Anchoring Value of Truth 96
Forgiveness and Freedom 101
The Varieties of Love 104
The Moral Uses of Spirituality 107
The Persistence of Hope 111
7. Moral Concepts in Practice II 115
Voluntary and Nonvoluntary Responsibilities 115
Justice and the Measure of Impartiality 118
Liberty and Its Limits 122
Contextualizing Rights 125
Conscience: Within—Not Above—the Moral Fray 128
How Death Enables Ethics 132
Contents ix
8. Skills and Concepts for Ethics beyond the Lifespan 137

Skills and Concepts in the Context of Global Warming 138
Five Morally Debilitating Features of Our
Current Thinking 141
1. Focus on the Present 142
2. Political Ineptness 143
3. Humans as the Crown of Creation 144
4. Consumerism 145
5. Mechanistic Views of Nature, Including
the Human Body 146
Getting Grounded 147
9. Cracking the Case, and Cases to Consider 151
Cracking the Case 151
Cases to Consider (or to Rewrite as Cracked Cases) 159
1. Adderall for Nonprescription Uses 159
2. Programming a Self-Driving Car 160
3. Buying and Selling Organs 161
4. Businesses That Provide Services Selectively 162
5. The Magnifying Effects of Social Media 163
6. Choosing the Sex of One’s Children 164
7. Vaccine Refusal: Personal Health and Public Health 165
8. Cows and Global Warming 166
9. Age as a Screen for Expensive Therapies 167
10. Arming Schoolteachers 168
11. Paying Student-Athletes 169
12. Divisive Monuments 170
Notes 171
Bibliography 181
Index 187
for
David Schenck
ingenious colleague and inspiring friend,
who believed in this book before I did
and
my many students—undergraduate, medical, graduate,
and adult learners,
from whom I have learned so much about ethics
Acknowledgments
I am happy to acknowledge, with thanks, the many people who

helped in the writing, reviewing, and final production of this book.
This volume has had a long gestation. One of the fortunate things
about my entry into ethics is that I was nested in an interdiscipli-
nary department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Rubbing shoulders daily with colleagues in the humanities and
social sciences, and with practicing physicians, meant that theory
could not be privileged in interpreting ethics. My focus necessarily
turned to the practicalities of how ethics works and what it means
on the ground. I owe much to my astute, early Chapel Hill col-
leagues, especially to Ruel Tyson, Nancy King, Gail Henderson, Sue
Estroff, Barry Saunders, James Bryan, and the late Alan Cross. By
the time I arrived at Vanderbilt in 2002, I was firmly entrenched in
this more interdisciplinary and useful way to do ethics.
As I began to write in the spring and summer of 2018 I incurred
additional debts. Nan and Mark Van Der Puy and Jan Munroe read
drafts of chapters and were discerning and encouraging in their
suggestions. Keith Meador, Joseph Fanning, and Kate Payne, my
former colleagues at the Vanderbilt Center for Biomedical Ethics
and Society, offered reassurance that this kind of ethics book was
needed. John Churchill, my brother in blood and in philosophy, re-
peatedly heard many of the ideas in this book over coffee and bis-
cuits. His responses were always thoughtful and heartening. Alan
Murphy gave invaluable assistance in refining and sharpening
the cases.
David Schenck, my coauthor on several previous books and arti-
cles, encouraged me to write about my approach to ethics teaching
and learning. His shrewd comments on the initial drafts kept me
xii Acknowledgments
focused and hopeful that something of value would emerge from

what I then called my “quixotic book.”
Allison Adams, as with two previous books, was an especially
adroit editor. She saved readers from a great deal of academic jargon
and challenged me to say things with more clarity. Katie Haywood
did extraordinary work in formatting, correcting errant references,
and otherwise assuring that the manuscript met high standards for
accuracy and consistency.
Lucy Randall, my editor for two previous books with Oxford,
had a sure sense for what a book like this might be and how to do it
better. I am enormously grateful for her support and guidance. And
I owe much to two anonymous readers she selected for reviewing
this book. They grasped the aims of the book and offered many
suggestions for improvement. I also thank Hannah Doyle at OUP
for her diligent attention to detail during the production process.
Much of what I know about ethics I owe to my wife, Sande, and
to other members of my family, especially our daughters Shelley
and Blair. Over the past decades I have learned from them more
than I could have imagined about love, truth, courage, persever-
ance, joy, and hope. No thanks could be adequate to the deep grat-
itude I feel toward these three amazing people. I hope they will see
some of their influence in the pages that follow. And finally, the
emphasis in this book on ethics across the lifespan was inspired
by my grandchildren—Miguel, Clara June, Wade, and Sofia. Each
has helped me in his or her own way to see how we all change and
that our ethical awareness needs to be responsive to these inevitable
shifts.
The remaining mistakes and gaffes are entirely my own.
I gratefully acknowledge permissions granted to reproduce small

portions of articles already in print.
The section entitled “Conscience: Within— Not Above— the
Moral Fray” in c hapter 7 is based on my article “Conscience and
Moral Tyranny,” which was published in Perspectives in Biology
Acknowledgments xiii
and Medicine (2015) Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 526–534. © Johns Hopkins
University Press.
The section entitled “Narrative Skill: Story-Making at Intersecting
Life Trajectories” in chapter 3 is based on my article “Narrative
Awareness in Ethics Consultations: The Ethics Consultant as Story-
Maker,” Hastings Center Report (2014) Vol. 44, Suppl 1, pp. S36–S39.
© The Hastings Center. Distributed by Wiley-Blackwell.
Introduction: Purpose and Uses
Why This Book?
This book maps the moral terrain in the grounded reality of human
experience without relying on theories or systems of ethics as the pri-
mary orienting strategy. Moral awareness needs first to be appreci-
ated for what it is before it is made to conform to theories or systems.
And moral consciousness is not a steady or stable set of perceptions;
as we change, so do the moral challenges that most concern us.
The point of entry for this volume is the raw materials of moral
life—the felt impulses of confusion, perplexity, and moral disori-
entation, as well as the satisfactions of moral growth and the en-
joyments of moral cohesion and consonance with others. This is
a book for people seeking to live a life that makes moral sense. It
argues that the best way to do this is by practicing and honing cer-
tain skills, learning to use some neglected conceptual tools, and
avoiding the inevitable pitfalls that oversimplify ethical problems
and their resolution.
This is also a book that recognizes that the messy business of
trying to live a moral life goes on much longer than most models
of ethics typically account for. Indeed, every phase of life seems to
present new moral challenges and requires rethinking old assump-
tions and habits. There are, to be sure, some patches of smooth
sailing, but as humans change over time, so do the seas that must
be navigated. That means that the exercise of skills for ethics, the
meaning of important concepts, and the relevance of various
pitfalls are to be learned and then relearned. Their importance must
be reassessed at major life junctures.
Ethics for Everyone. Larry R. Churchill, Oxford University Press (2020) © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190080891.001.0001
2 Introduction
This way of thinking about ethics as a field of inquiry and ac-

tivity began for me about 25 years ago when I realized that I was
fundamentally engaged in teaching students rather than teaching
a subject matter. I was, of course, teaching ethics, as I had always
done, but what now motivated me was less a desire to impart
the fundamentals of a discipline than an interest in the students
themselves, who were often at crucial junctures in their moral de-
velopment. As I began to play out the implications of this pivot,
I became far more interested in what the medical and undergrad-
uate students were saying in class and less inclined to “cover the
material.” I wanted to hear them out, even when it took discussions
in different and unpredictable directions. I became less concerned
with whether I had done an adequate job of explaining Kant’s cat-
egorical imperative and more focused on whether I had met the
students where they were, in terms of those moral concerns and
interests that emerged in the class. With this focus on students also
came less emphasis on reasoning with standard moral concepts
and more concern with other skills: how to deal with affective
responses to difficult cases, how to accredit and respect—rather
than label and dismiss—the differing opinions of others, and gen-
erally what counts as growing and maturing morally. The classes
themselves became more fluid, less predictable, and thereby more
fun, both for the students and for me.
Around that same time, I began anew the practice of clinical
ethics consultation in a major tertiary care hospital, following
several years of absence from this activity. Listening to patients,
families of patients, and those who cared for them professionally
was much like listening to students. Both groups—and indeed
all of us—enter ethics from distinctive perspectives, with diver-
gent preparations, and with unique histories. The task became re-
specting and learning from this diversity rather than regulating
it into some standard way of proceeding. I also began to see that
the key ingredient in “doing” ethics—that is, carrying on the moral
Introduction 3
inquiry when the class or consultation ended—was curiosity and

wonder about one’s own moral sensibilities.
With this new approach came the need for different ethics
texts, but none satisfied me. Typically, textbooks in ethics written
by scholars and teachers of philosophy focus on describing and
clarifying the standard ethical theories and rehearsing the cus-
tomary problem list. In some books, this combination of theories
and problems is done with insight and finesse, while in others it
seems ham-handed and robotic. But in neither case is it a sound
starting place if one wants to make ethics come alive to people
where they are, rather than where we want them to be. Such texts
usually excel in illuminating only one aspect of moral delibera-
tion: clear-headed reasoning that follows the linear implications
of arguments.
One of the things I noted in listening to both students in the
classroom and patients and families on the hospital floors is that
people are seldom argued out of their moral stances. One reason for
this is that moral values reside in places other than our reasoning
capacities. They reside as well, and more deeply, in our feelings,
our imaginations, and our histories and in the parables, maxims,
wisdom sayings, and short stories we tell ourselves about who we
are and what we stand for. This book is the result of my search for an
approach to ethics in this more multitextured way, a way that will
speak to the larger range of human capacities that ethics engages.
Ethical reflection is one of the principal ways we become more fully
human. This reflection cannot occur if it is confined to reasoning
and theory application. We need a view of ethics that engages a
broader range of human capacities and one that takes in a wider
field of inquiry and activity.
The distinguishing features of this volume are
• a concern with curiosity and wonder as a chief impetus for

ethics;
4 Introduction
• a focus on the broad range of human moral experiences rather

than narrowly on problem-solving;
• ethical activity as requiring a range of skills and capacities and
not just clear-headed thinking; and
• an understanding of ethics as changing over one’s lifetime,
rather than remaining static.
This book is not a guide to problem-solving; it is an invitation to

explore the human moral sensibilities. The guidance offered aims at
competence in those skills that are necessary for ethical inquiry to
succeed. Most works in ethics skip this essential, preliminary step
and go straight to a problem list and theoretical applications. Yet if
we are to have any appreciation of how theories might be helpful we
must first deal with ethics as a complex form of human skills and
interactions. This is where ethics begins—and where this volume
begins. My goal is to describe some of the basic workings of ethics
for the human species and entice readers into an ongoing inquiry
into how ethics shapes our lives.
How to Use This Book:

Suggestions for Beginning Students,
Professional Students, Clinical Ethicists,
and General Readers
Working through the book from beginning to end is one option.

Beginning with Chapter 1 can clear away misconceptions and set
realistic expectations. I would recommend this approach for first-
time ethics students, although other useful strategies for begin-
ners are discussed next. Students with a fair amount of ethics study
under their belts will find the skills-based approach of the early
chapters adds important tools to their repertoire. Chapter 5 speaks
especially to those who tend to get caught up in debates about
which ethical theories are best.
Introduction 5
Concepts are introduced after the chapters on skills and pitfalls,

but you can have recourse to the concepts at any point they are
needed. Discovering that you need a conceptual tool to adequately
describe a moral experience or analyze a problem is far more ef-
fective than being asked to study that concept cold. For example,
the first time the term “truth” or “deception” comes up in a discus-
sion is a good time to refer to the section in Chapter 6 entitled “The
Anchoring Value of Truth,” or when “fairness” emerges in a conver-
sation, the section in Chapter 7 entitled “Justice and the Measure of
Impartiality” becomes relevant.
One of the aims of this book is to promote reflection on our own
moral experiences and curiosity about the shape and contours of our
moral sensibilities. Adult learners typically have many such experi-
ences; students in their late teens have fewer. I encourage readers of
all ages to work out of their own life experiences, but this may not
always be feasible. One strategy to accommodate for less experience
is to go immediately to the 12 cases in Chapter 9 and write a response
to one or more of them. Understanding the moral tension in these
cases requires no specialized knowledge. This could be followed by
working through the first part of Chapter 9, “Cracking the Case,” to
promote critical reflection on how cases are constructed and how
they might be presented from a different vantage point. A second
analysis of the cases you select after you have finished the book can
solidify and underscore your gains in greater dexterity with moral
skills and the ability to interpret concepts.
Another starting point could be the exercises in Chapter 4. Like
beginning with cases, this strategy also grounds the study of ethics
in something you bring to the course. Efforts to tell a story of how
you changed your mind or the difficulties of describing suffering,
for example, can then be related to the discussion of the relevant
skills in Chapters 2 and 3. Working to get both you and your in-
structor or conversation partners to invest something that comes
out of your lives and experiences is one of the most important fea-
tures in successfully engaging ethics.
6 Introduction
If you are a student in professional education such as med-

icine, nursing, law, business, or ministry you may come to this
book with either a lot of ethics preparation or very little. If you
have had a standard ethics course that emphasized the applica-
tion of theories to vexing dilemmas you will find this skills-based
approach more immediately serviceable. Because the practice
of your profession routinely requires dexterous personal inter-
actions with your patients, clients, or parishioners, the skills-
based approach will find numerous everyday applications.
Chapters 6 and 7 can be used selectively. Law students may find
the sections on concepts like justice, rights, and responsibilities
of greater interest, while students in the health sciences and min-
istry may find the sections discussing love, hope, and forgiveness
carry special relevance.
Clinical ethicists, who do some of the most challenging work
I have ever experienced, were never far from my mind as I con-
ceived and wrote this book. In an ethics consultative role, we are al-
most always constrained by time, by the question or crisis at hand,
and by the wide range of patients, families, and health professionals
we encounter. For this specialized work the most obviously helpful
skills are what I identify as relinquishing, emotional, and cognitive
skills, described in Chapter 2 and especially the imaginative and
narrative skills discussed in Chapter 3. Finding emotional equi-
librium and slowing down the process of ethical deliberation are
almost always required in clinical consultative work. Stretching
empathic capacities to tell a credible narrative about the issues is
critically important. The basic task for the clinical ethicist is mod-
eling these skills and, by so doing, showing that better decisions
and better relationships can emerge. Short training sessions can be
devised around each of these skills, a task I have begun in the exer-
cises in Chapter 4.
Notwithstanding the professional uses of this text, my aim has
been to focus on skills and concepts that are relevant to people
Introduction 7
not only in their professional roles, but also in the whole of

their lives and over the long term. My aim has been to design a
book that will not only be worth the initial read, but also worth
a second reading 10 years later, as the contours of our lives shift
and develop.
1
Dimensions of Moral Experience
Varieties of Moral Perplexity
Life is messy. Situations are sometimes difficult and almost never

designed to bring out the best in us. Moral rules for getting us
through difficult situations are often too simplistic. Ethical theories
that seem elegant on paper often flounder in practice, as though
they were intended for robots rather than people. In the lived world,
efforts to lead a moral life are beset with perplexities.
“I wish I had done better,” we sometimes think. “I could have
taken more time, been less emotionally reactive or more patient.”
Regret over a moral choice is not an everyday experience, but it is
common. And beyond larger ethical decisions, the routine tasks of
getting around a changing and uncertain world can tax and chal-
lenge us morally.
Moral perplexity may take many forms. It may simply be that
we wonder why we didn’t make different and better choices. We
can also be confused about precisely what went wrong or what ad-
justments would have helped. Or the perplexity may be deeper.
Sometimes our actions seem to us (and perhaps to others who
know us) uncharacteristic; we may well be wondering what we were
thinking. “Was that me talking?” we might ask. “It sounded so judg-
mental.” We can also surprise ourselves: “I didn’t know I was still
angry about that.” We can be perplexed about actions taken or not
taken, about motives we feel or intentions we have, or about a cer-
tain demeanor or stance we adopt. The perplexity can be negative—
wondering why we acted so rudely to a friend—or positive, feeling
surprised at our forbearance in the face of a belittling remark, or at
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190080891.001.0001
10 Ethics for Everyone
our courage and perseverance when a family member was in in-

tensive care. Actions and choices get most of the press in ethics,
but morality is also about habits, dispositions, and demeanors.
Occasionally the demeanors carry a moral message contrary to the
acts. For example, cruel actions can be carried out with finesse and
aplomb, and kind acts can carry an odor of condescension.
This book is for anyone who has been challenged by these com-
plexities and wondered about the distinctive and fascinating di-
mension of ourselves we call our “moral life.”
Curiosity and Wonder as the Impetus

for Ethics
The study of ethics is in large part a response to our natural curi-

osity about ourselves and fascination with the changing patterns of
our lives. Each of us is unique, not simply in terms of an unrepeat-
able genetic composition, but in terms of our history, our environ-
ment, and the influences in our lives. We have a growing sense of
this personal uniqueness from an early age, and it is solidified with
the recognition that we each are given a distinctive name. Curiosity
about just what makes us who we are, the need to explore what is
special about us, inevitably involves ethics. Our unique social, envi-
ronmental, and other influences are reflected in how we size up the
world, and ourselves, morally. While our biology may determine
much, we are quite open socially, psychologically, and culturally.
And our moral norms eventually shape all these ways we remain
underdetermined. The desire to explore these unique moral factors
that shape us is what drives ethics. In a limited but still substantial
sense, we get to choose who we are. Getting serious about ethics be-
gins when curiosity drives us to choose self-consciously rather than
by custom or habit. The ethics skills discussed in chapters 2 and 3
can help us realize the potential for choosing a moral life that each
of us can call “mine.”
Dimensions of Moral Experience 11
Typically books about ethics are packed with problems and the
theories calculated to resolve them. Yet most students of ethics do
not turn to ethics because their moral systems have run aground
by encountering some difficult problem. They turn to ethics be-
cause they have encountered others who think differently, or they
have a growing sense that they now think differently than they did
before college, or before the rotation in the hospital burn unit, or
before their much-loved grandmother died. I believe this is also
the case for later-life engagement with ethics. For example, living
with an intimate partner, or becoming a parent or a grandparent,
or retiring, or encountering a serious or chronic illness are all mor-
ally charged. In short, whatever life experiences or junctures we
encounter carry challenges to our moral sensibilities. While we all
face challenging moral dilemmas, the greater impetus for turning
to ethics is simple curiosity about these changes and challenges
and a desire to understand their significance. When we realize that
the moral framework we assumed was stable is actually in flux, we
are compelled to study ethics.
A second kind of curiosity and wonderment also motivates
ethics: inextricable connections with other people. We are social
creatures, intimately associated with others and never free from the
need to understand and bespeak who we are, ethically speaking, to
family, friends, and even adversaries. To be sure, this sociality can
be devoid of wonder if it is imbued with moral arrogance: I assume
I am morally superior, so that the views of others do not matter to
me. Alternatively, I can block out any real interaction with others if
I am obsequious, that is, if my routine demeanor is one of unwor-
thiness, and no praise or positive regard can penetrate my armor
of subservience. More productively, this sociality is threaded with
a curiosity and wonder at my openness to the ways that others’
opinions count for me and help to shape the opinion I have of my-
self. Am I a good son and brother and, later, a good husband and
father, a good teacher, scholar, colleague, citizen, and, later still, a
good grandfather? Each determination of goodness has its own
reference community: the people I look to for insight and discern-

ment. We never cease to be curious about how we are for others and
wonder at the intricacies of our connectedness.
A third kind of curiosity and wonderment also motivates ethics.
Occasionally we are witnesses to acts of extraordinary moral in-
sight, such as the nonviolent protests for human rights led by
Mahatma Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King Jr. in the United
States. We not only are deeply curious about and esteem these
moral innovations. We also feel a profound sense of wonder and
awe at the courage required to enact them. But we need not choose
historical or celebrated figures. Most of us have witnessed extraor-
dinary insights and courage in daily matters, such as the challenges
of child-rearing, dealing with chronic and debilitating illnesses,
sustaining goodwill in the face of degrading attitudes, or persever-
ance in sustaining care for others that is costly to the caregivers.
These insights are also, and equally, objects of our fascination, ad-
miration, awe, and wonderment. And the wonderment isn’t con-
fined to acts or people. Reflecting on ethical capacities themselves
can bring yet another kind of curiosity and awe. Eighteenth-century
philosopher Immanuel Kant said he felt an increasing admiration
and reverence for the presence of the moral law within him.1
I present this short handbook in that spirit of wonder, fascina-
tion, and delight in exploring ourselves as exceedingly complex,
dynamic, interconnected, and changing beings. Describing, under-
standing, and then choosing our defining moral values is the work
of each of us and, literally, the work of a lifetime.
Ethics Belongs to Everyone
The ability to act self-consciously based on moral values is one

of the defining features of human life. Typically, we learn moral
standards from our native environments and our families of or-
igin. As we mature there is both a curiosity and a need to question
those origins and decide which are worthy of our embrace, and
why. So, while our initial morality from our families of origin is
imbibed unself-consciously, at some point morality becomes re-
flective, and we begin to ask why any choice or behavior could be
called “right” or “wrong.” At this point ethics is about asking and
answering, “Why?” What makes a choice or way of life better than
the alternatives?
Once the “Why?” question is posed we are off and running,
seeking a better, more complete accounting for ourselves than
simply saying, “This just seems right to me” or “I have always done
it this way.” As we grow more comfortable in this inquiring capacity,
we learn to ask the question behind that question, and the question
behind that one. For example, if I say, “I do it this way because that
is what my parents taught me” or “That’s what Scripture teaches,”
I will be led to ask, “How do I know my parents were right?” or
“Why should I (or anyone) accept the authority of Scripture?” This
does not imply that one’s parents or Scripture is wrong. It simply
means that ethics probes into why any moral authority should have
such influence. Learning to give reasons that, on reflection, are sat-
isfying means learning to think for oneself. At this level, ethics is
the desire to know why anything or anyone I accept as a moral au-
thority is worthy of that trust.
Answering the “Why?” question requires stepping back from
the immediate context and reflecting, analyzing, probing, and
deliberating. And there are many ways of doing this. The idea is
to place the problem and the need for an immediate decision “on
hold.” For example, when we say, “I think I’ll sleep on that,” we are
saying that some gestational time may work well for us, giving us
a fresh look at the problem in the morning. In making just this
simple move we are implying that the discerning mechanisms we
feel are important can be engaged only if we defocus on the imme-
diate and let the problem marinate in our imagination. This simple
and typical mode of stepping back lets alternative ways of seeing a
problem emerge.
Another way to step back is to consult the authoritative figures

in my moral imagination, my moral heroes, and ask, “What would
they do in this situation, and why?” I may also gain some critical dis-
tance by asking, “How will others look at me if I take one course of
action or another?” I can also ask, “Which choices would be worthy
of me?” evoking some aspirations I have for my life. Another way of
stepping back from the immediate context to find our bearings is to
call on the little maxims or sayings that we learned from our moral
mentors—often our parents—and see what interpretive sense they
can provide us. One of my father’s life maxims was, “Do the best
you can and take what comes.” This epigram encapsulates a com-
bination of a duty to give one’s best effort, combined with a stoic
recognition that even our best efforts sometimes fail, and we must
accept the consequences. It has usually proven to be more useful in
my life than standard theoretical analysis. Recourse to parables or
short vignettes can also serve the same purpose as pithy maxims
or wisdom sayings. One additional strategy most of us use is con-
sulting trusted friends, a dynamic so rich that I will not try to de-
scribe it here, except to note that it bespeaks the deeply social nature
of ethics, as previously discussed.
Consulting moral theories is yet another way of stepping back
and getting some productive distance on a decision. Theories can
be very useful for reframing decisions around a feature of ethics,
such as happiness or duty, and theories typically provide rules for
measuring the extent to which various options satisfy this feature.
Theories thus require us to ask, “Which choice will do the least
harm and the greatest good, or fulfill my duties in this situation,
or which choice is the most just or fair?” Recourse to theories can
be helpful, but it is rarely the best way to step back and almost
never our first or only reflective move. I will have more to say
about the role and place of theories in ethics in c hapter 5, “Some
Common Pitfalls.”
The list of possible distancing moves is very long, and there is no
one right way to step back and get this critical distance on oneself
and clarify one’s ethical priorities. I mention these few to illustrate

how to ask and answer the “Why?” question and push ethics into a
higher gear. Yet it is important to remember that the space and time
for stepping back to reflect is fragile, and it goes against personal
habits, institutional inertia, or the sheer need to move ahead and
get something done. I will have more to say about this in the section
in chapter 2 entitled “Cognitive Skill: Thinking Slowly.”
The commonplace moral move of stepping back to gain reflec-
tive space carries an important message about expertise in ethics.
Ethics is too often thought to be the province of experts—an eso-
teric field in which the major texts are in Greek or German and in
which even the translations are abstruse and the reasoning beyond
the ken of ordinary people. I believe there is real benefit to studying
great thinkers like Aristotle and Kant, and I devote chapters 6 and
7 to describing some important moral concepts and the innovators
who presented them. Yet the lasting insights of these moral theorists
can be made accessible to all of us; no advanced degree in ethics is
required. More important, the essential practical skills of ethics are
already available to most of us and often already in use. The real dif-
ficulty is not in understanding them but in practicing them consist-
ently. In sum, whatever the reasons that sound ethical deliberation
is so often absent in personal or public life, it is not because ethics as
a field requires highly specialized knowledge or recondite theories.
Ethical reflection and sound deliberation are things that all of us
can do, given the will to undertake them.
The Humanizing Function

of Ethical Dialogue
An ethical conversation begins with the assumption that others

have moral values that are as important to them as mine are to
me. I must seriously and respectfully entertain both my conversa-
tion partners’ values and my own. This simple act is a humanizing
activity, for it means that I am willing to set aside, at least for the
moment, differences in power, status, and education to consider
matters afresh. To be productive, ethical conversations must sus-
pend hierarchy and minimize power differences. Moral values are
simply not accessible unless they are approached in this way. This
suspension of status to enable attention to values is not easy and
is perhaps why genuine ethical conversations between parents and
children and between supervisors and employees are infrequent.
Engaging in ethical deliberation means listening— paying
attention— and this calls into play our innate empathic ca-
pacity. David Hume, Adam Smith, and other philosophers of the
eighteenth-century Scottish Enlightenment were the most system-
atic and sophisticated students of this capacity, which they termed
“sympathy” or “fellow feeling.”2 The education and refinement of
this universal capacity for sympathy (what we would now term “em-
pathy”) through reasoned reflection was for them the core of ethics.
Thus, as Hume and Smith saw it, ethics could be said to be human-
izing because it called for the higher development of a basic capacity
we seem to share with other life forms. Attaining this higher develop-
ment necessarily requires respectful engagement with other persons
as sentient and reflective beings like ourselves whose moral values
have for them the same primal place that mine have for me.
Ethical engagement is humanizing in another obvious way.
Because it involves the mutual flow of empathy and respectful re-
gard for differences that lets values emerge in an exchange, it is also
a mode of interacting that is vastly less harmful to the participants
than other modes of handling disagreements, such as shouting
matches, holding grudges, filing law suits, or shooting people.
If ethics is considered a mode of conflict resolution, per-
haps there is much to learn from studying the moral behavior of
other primates. The primatologist Frans de Waal, wary of quasi-
Darwinian theories that make aggression the bedrock explana-
tion for primate behavior, has spent a career investigating how
relationships are repaired and normalized following outbreaks
of aggression. Most rituals for reconciliation, he discovered, take

minutes or hours, whereas humans sometimes hold grudges and
seek revenge over decades or even across generations. De Waal
concludes his book Peacemaking among Primates by saying that
“forgiveness is not . . . a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe
to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. . . . The fact that monkeys,
apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior means that
it is probably over thirty million years old.”3 I will take up the matter
of forgiveness again in c hapter 6.
The findings of de Waal signal both the immense antiquity of
reconciling behaviors and their profound importance for human
well-being. Consistent with my previously described approach, it
would be accurate to say that while only humans engage in ethics,
understood in the deep sense of reflective weighing to guide ac-
tions and find justifications, the higher primates are clearly capable
of moral activity that is respectful and constructive. I find it helpful
to think of ethical discussion and deliberation as a higher form of
the conciliatory physical gestures of our primate relatives such as
hand-holding, food sharing, and grooming. In other words, our
ethical practices are simply a sophisticated verbal and cognitive
extension of attitudes of respectful interaction with evolutionary
roots extending back several millions of years. Ethics, as twenty-
first-century peoples know it, is the most recent flowering of this
ancient root.
Moreover, ethical deliberation, as one of the modes of recog-
nition and reconciliation, can have a positive effect on human
bonding even when it fails as a mechanism of problem-solving or
consensus. Ethics has intrinsic and not just instrumental value,
so the benefit of ethical deliberation and discussion can be sig-
nificant even when consensus is not possible, or an “answer” is
not reached. For example, the public policy question of whether
to mandate childhood vaccines for attendance at public schools
typically places local health officials in opposition to parents who
want the final say over their children’s lives. While an ethical
discussion between health officials and parents may not result in

a consensus about mandated vaccines, the discussion can help
both sides understand the legitimate concerns of those who dis-
agree. Sometimes a middle-ground position can be found, but at
a minimum a mutually respectful attention means that all parties
can continue to think of themselves as belonging to the same
community.
Ignorance, Learning (and Relearning)

What Moral Values We Hold
Ethics is, among other things, a process of learning what moral

values we hold. It might be thought that this is self-evident, that we
already know what our values are. But the activity of ethics assumes
that we do not have such knowledge naturally or that, if we do, we
only know in part and that often we are mistaken. Thus, ethics be-
gins with what we might call “Socratic ignorance.”4
Socrates was the gadfly of ancient Athens who provoked his con-
temporaries by asking awkward and often unwelcome questions
about the taken- for-
granted morality of his time. He probed
magistrates about the nature of justice, generals about the nature of
courage, and the religiously devout about the nature of piety. None
of their answers could withstand his scrutiny. And what was true
for the ancient Athenians is true for us today. Too few of us have
followed our natural curiosity about moral values to explore them
thoroughly. Rather, we have settled into some convenient and so-
cially acceptable version of who we are and what ethical standards
are worth our allegiance. Socratic ignorance thus expresses the
realization that humans generally can be witless about the deeper
meaning of the moral values they say they espouse. Socrates
thought this was true not just for others, but also for himself. The
difference was that he acknowledged his ignorance whereas others
presented themselves as confidently knowledgeable.
The Socratic Dialogues, written by Socrates’ pupil, Plato, detail

how such superficial and unexamined claims to knowledge lead
to absurd conclusions, personal delusions, and evil. Beginning
ethics with an assumption of moral ignorance is important be-
cause it leads away from a false sense of moral certainty and to-
ward humility. I will say more about the lure of moral certainty
in another chapter, but my emphasis here is upon embracing ig-
norance because it opens us to curiosity and investigation. The en-
terprise of ethics is precisely this flow: discovering our ignorance,
working through our superficial reassurances of moral knowledge,
deliberating with oneself and others on the alternatives for the good
life, and finally embracing those moral values which emerge as su-
perior. Socrates is famous for saying that the unexamined life is not
worth living, which roughly means that a life shaped by superficial
notions of right and wrong lead to delusions about ourselves and
others, delusions that are often destructive of human happiness. We
will consider later in detail just what sort of happiness follows from
living in accord with a search for the best moral values. Suffice it to
say that it is not the obsession with materialistic hedonism—bigger
houses, faster cars, and higher incomes—of early twenty-first-
century Western life, but something more like flourishing, or ful-
filling one’s best potential.
Our moral sense of self is a large part of what defines us. We
hold our moral values, and they in turn hold us. This is not a re-
lationship of reciprocity but of something deeper—an interpene-
tration. We embrace our moral values, and they leave their mark
on us—they enter our thinking and feeling and form habits and
patterns that persist over time and, in this way, come to define
us. Our “core” moral values, as the name implies, are not external
aids, tools, or props we can pick up and then put aside when we
are done with them. These central values are simply who we are.
Put another way, whatever moral norms we hold position and
sustain us in a trajectory, they map us, and following them keeps
us “on track.” They mark out our path, for good or ill. This is true
for both honorable and praiseworthy values, such as generosity,

but also for destructive ones, such as envy. Seen is this light, there
is hardly anything more important than the kind of probing and
examination that ethics endorses.
Ethics as Ongoing
It is sometimes thought that once we have gone through a process

of critically examining our moral values we will be set and settled
for the duration of life. This would be a safe assumption if we were
static creatures. Yet this is far from accurate. Life continues to show
that we are moving targets, morally. Changes in our biology, our
environment, both physical and social, the structure of our families
and our friendships, our professional lives—not to mention all the
accidents and unplanned events that occur—all these things change
us in multiple and unpredictable ways. And these changes, in turn,
affect the moral values we hold and which values we need to adapt,
survive, and hopefully flourish. We are simply not the same people
we were in a previous period or stage in our lives. Just as no one of
us is the same person at 25 that we were at 15, we are different—
often dramatically so—at 35, 55, and so on, until our life ends.
Being serious about ethics means being serious about recognizing
change in ourselves and others. The virtues and principles of ethics
that served us well at one stage in life may not work as well or at all,
or may even be counterproductive, at a later stage. For example, the
moral values needed for parenting are not the same as those needed
for grandparenting. The ethics of being a leader in a business unit are
not those of being a novice employee in that unit. The moral values
needed for a life in an old age that is diminished physically are not
those a healthy 20-year-old needs. This list could be multiplied many
times over. The point is emphasized by the pre-Socratic philosopher
Heraclitus: change is constant.5 Adapting the old moral assump-
tions to the new situation, or perhaps even leaving them behind and
discovering new ones, is an ongoing process. Every stage and role in

life will bring a new form of moral ignorance, a new need for probing
and investigation, and a refined or reworked moral identity.
Obstacles to Ethics
Sometimes moral discussions can fail to launch. These failures are

not temporary lapses, such as gaps in our thinking, inattentive-
ness, or garden-variety pigheadedness, but maneuvers that go off
the rails in a wholesale way so that the entire enterprise of ethics
is called into question. In various ways these obstacles say that
ethics is not just wrong-headed but fruitless and perhaps even im-
possible. Here are some of the more important moves that barri-
cade ethical progress.
1. Moral Arbitrariness
The idea that morals are arbitrary conventions, or merely custom,

is usually labeled “relativism.” A moral relativist believes there is no
moral truth, just differences. Disagreements between and among
people are not grounded in anything real or substantial, but simply
reflect social or cultural differences, customs, or perhaps individual
tastes. Relativism comes in a variety of forms. A personal relativist
might say that what look like moral differences reduce to matters of
taste or aesthetics. I like chocolate and you like vanilla. I prefer long
hair and wide ties; you prefer crew cuts and narrow ties. In such
situations it would be absurd to discuss who is right or wrong. It’s
just a matter of taste, of what one prefers. Just so in matters of ethics,
the relativist argues. There are no common standards we might ap-
peal to, no arguing about moral matters and finding a common res-
olution based on accepted standards of reasoning. Ethical progress
is thus impossible, and ethical discussions, pointless. With personal
relativism people can exchange differences of opinion, and this can

be interesting, but it doesn’t go anywhere.
Social or historical relativists differ only in that they reduce
moral differences to cultural divergence and historical contin-
gencies. The cultural relativist might argue, for example, that
slavery in the antebellum South was neither right nor wrong,
it’s just what some southerners believed was right at the time.
Saying it was wrong would be an anachronism, imposing our cur-
rent moral values on a culture that we never experienced. And
since relativists don’t think moral differences can be adjudicated,
they are typically very tolerant of these differences. As Simon
Blackburn colorfully puts it, some cultures like to bury their dead,
others build little shrines to them, others eat them, and still others
worship them.6 Who’s to say who is right about this? It’s just dif-
ferent customs, and that’s what ethical differences really amount
to—nothing more. To be clear, Blackburn has his own arguments
against this sort of arbitrariness.
It’s important to be able to recognize moral arbitrariness pre-
cisely because of its corrosive nature. Claims of arbitrariness make
ethical discussion—by which I mean here deliberation and adjudi-
cation of moral values—impossible. It reduces ethics to something
else, historical or cultural factors, preferences, or aesthetic choices.
While stances of arbitrariness may seem cosmopolitan, they often
are indicators of intellectual laziness. Intellectual laziness is evident
in the resistance to the sort of probing, reflecting, rethinking, and
exchanges that real ethics requires. We see people refusing to enter
ethical dialogue routinely, sometimes because they have grown
cynical but more often because it is just too difficult. I had rather
not be asked to rethink my position, thank you very much. The
fact made evident by this refusal is salutary, for it reminds us that
ethics takes real effort and the exercise of a range of virtues, such as
empathy, patience, careful listening, and sound reasoning, as I will
discuss later.
Most significant, moral arbitrariness or relativism is a belief

system that cannot be adhered to consistently. There are many the-
oretical relativists but few practitioners. Scratch us deeply enough
and on enough topics, and we will always find some matters on
which we have strong moral views. For example, students who
embrace arbitrariness about sexual matters seem to have a strong
sense of fairness and justice about how grades should be assigned.
The thoroughgoing relativist, who believes that in all matters ethics
reduces to culture history, custom, or preferences, has not entered
the ethical dialogue at all, but is taking a metaposition, over and
above the fray. To do this completely is to cease to acknowledge
what most of us feel is an important part of human discourse. In this
sense there are no final, knock-down arguments against relativists,
and the best remedy may be to find where their (unacknowledged)
moral values are threatened.
2. Absolute Certainty
Absolute certainty can be defined as the direct counterpoint to

moral arbitrariness. While the relativist believes there are no dis-
agreements that might be adjudicated by appeal to a commonly
recognized standard, those who are absolutely certain believe that
there are timeless and universal moral standards that admit to no
variation. The relativist believes there is no such thing as moral
truths; the absolutist believes there are capital-T truths. While
practicing relativists are rare, practicing absolutists are abundant
in early twenty-first-century Western societies. An absolutist might
believe, for example, that abortions are wrong categorically. They
are wrong regardless of circumstance or context, independent
of all features that might otherwise mitigate such a judgment.
Abortions chosen because of rape, incest, or to spare suffering to a
malformed and nonviable fetus are the same, morally, as aborting a
healthy, viable fetus for reasons of convenience late in a pregnancy.

Absolutists admit no exceptions to the moral truth as they see it.
Moral absolutists are especially susceptible to the notion that fol-
lowing rules is the best way to lead a moral life. “Don’t have abor-
tions, or support others in doing so” has the appeal of being clear,
easy to follow, and emotionally reassuring. It has the weakness of
being too simplistic and failing to distinguish between different
reasons and motives for ending a pregnancy. It clumps moral ex-
periences instead of looking carefully at differences between people
and their situations. While some moral rules can be useful, moving
beyond a moral life that relies primarily on rules to one that is
skills-based and encourages skepticism about grand, sweeping
generalizations—and the rules that flow from them—is essential if
we are to mature morally. We should think of most rules as starting
points for reflection, not as commandments for behavior; then we
will know which rules to hold on to and which tend to be damaging
because they foreclose on thinking and inhibit our growth.
Religious evangelicals and conservative politicians often speak
in absolutist tones about abortion and a variety of other issues.
Radical left-wing activists often sound just as intransigent. The
problem with absolutism as a moral position is that, as in rela-
tivism, the enterprise of ethics is rendered useless. An absolutist,
knowing the moral truth, sees no need to genuinely engage and
turns deliberation, reflection, and debate into castigation of those
who differ and conversion to the “right” point of view as the final
goal. Why listen to others, weigh their reasoning, or empathize with
their perspective if you already know they are wrong? In public
settings exchanges with absolutists often begin and end in personal
attacks and villainization. This is true across the political and reli-
gious spectra; those from the far left as well as those from the far
right are both prone to this sort of absolutist self-righteousness. It
judges rather than listens; it seeks to convert—to force someone
to change their mind—rather than to persuade—to explore other
perspectives and possibilities together.
Just like relativism, absolute certainty sucks the dialectical air

from the room. It stops conversation and prohibits the emergence
of any space for ethical deliberation.
3. Perfectionism
Moral perfectionism is the effort to eliminate all lapses in moral

judgments. It is essentially the desire for moral sainthood, for pu-
rity. It feeds off a bimodal, all-or-none understanding of ethics. In
this way of understanding, “the perfect” is truly the enemy of “the
good,” or, we might say, “the good enough.” In this volume I have
emphasized human skills, in part to underline the idea that we are
morally fragile and limited creatures regarding our ability to live up
to our moral standards. Being consistently a good person is an aspi-
ration, not an easy achievement, and mostly we fall short in a variety
of ways. Sometimes our moral vision is cloudy; sometimes we use
the tools of ethical analysis ineptly; sometimes we are not in com-
mand of enough of the facts; at other times we rush our judgments
out of impatience or fatigue in dealing with difficulty. Moreover,
it is easy to fool ourselves into thinking we are choosing for noble
motives, when in fact we are just covering our backsides. The list
goes on and on. Ethics relies on a hard-eyed, steady, and candid
look at our moral failings, as well as our achievements. Efforts at
perfectionism or moral saintliness often turn out not to be noble as-
pirations, but traps. Since perfection and saintliness are impossible
they often lead to cynicism, as our superhuman standards result in
constant failure. A moral standard impossible to meet will be even-
tually discarded.7
Yet there is another conclusion even more disturbing. Saintly
aspirations can also lead to moral self-delusion—thinking we
are better than our actions warrant. Perfectionist aspirations in
medicine, for example, make us less aware of the ways claims of
altruism in patient care cloak self-interest. The same might be
said for parenting. Montaigne had a pungent way of expressing

this: “There are two things that I have always observed to be
in singular accord: supercelestial thoughts and subterranean
conduct.”8
Perfectionism as a way of thinking about ethics can apply to
communities as well as individuals. Western political thought is re-
plete with visions of perfect societies, or utopias, and they stretch
from Plato’s Republic to Karl Marx’s vision of communism. Thomas
Nagel has rightly critiqued this form of collective perfectionism: “A
theory is utopian in the pejorative sense if it describes a form of col-
lective life that humans, or most humans, could not lead and could
not come to be able to lead through any feasible process of social
and mental development.”9 Thus does utopianism engender im-
possible perfectionist tendencies. It always flounders because of the
complexities and fragilities of human life.
The Aims of Ethics
Ethics has four aims. First, it is a way to discover and redis-

cover our own values, then to choose them, and finally to live
by them. Ethics results in knowing what we value and why we
value it. Second, ethics aims to discover the moral values of
others. We are led to this discovery because understanding the
moral values of others is part of the process of uncovering our
own. I cannot simply reflect on my moral values and then iden-
tify them through introspection alone. The French philosopher
René Descartes thought he could go into social isolation and
identify the roots and warrants for true knowledge.10 The results
were disastrous. Going into hibernation to discover my moral
values is equally fruitless and hazardous, leading to a dehuman-
ized model for knowledge. In ethics we need conversation part-
ners; we need the company of friends, spouses, children, and
neighbors and a wide range of thinkers, poets, and literary texts

to even sense the possibilities of what moral values we might
entertain as fitting for ourselves. Thinking deeply means having
thought from the point of view of others, far and near, living and
dead. Ethics thus aims for understanding others’ moral values
both as instrumental to getting my own head clear and as an end
in itself.
A third aim is to achieve accord between our internal moral
lives and our external actions. Behaviors and choices rarely reflect
the full moral weight we assign to them, or all we intend them to
convey. Hence, the constant need to say what we intended, wanted
to achieve, or were trying to do: “I only meant to help,” we often
say when our well-intended actions make matters worse. Or, “I
am doing this for your own good,” we say when we need to jus-
tify usurping someone’s prerogatives for an end we somehow
“know” to be better than what they would otherwise have chosen.
Praiseworthiness and blameworthiness of actions often depend on
how they can be interpreted through recourse to some feature of the
inner life we want to make visible. Ethics then aims for clarity about
the nest of motivations and intentions that accompany all moral be-
haviors, about the complex gestures—both verbal and bodily—we
employ to make ourselves transparent, both to others and to our-
selves. Consonance between our inner moral sensibilities and our
exterior actions puts us at rest.
Finally, and most obviously, ethics aims to solve problems.
Problem-solving is sometimes thought of as the most important, or
sole, aim of ethics. I have placed it last to suggest that it may well be
less important than the other previously discussed aims. Certainly,
if the other three aims are achieved, problem-solving becomes less
problematic. Sometimes we don’t so much make a decision but re-
alize that in the process of achieving the first three aims of ethics, a
solution has been reached. Problem-solving is then more like a dis-
covery than a decision.
Teaching, Learning, and “Catching” Ethics
Skepticism about ethics abounds. Everyone who takes ethics se-

riously will at some time encounter people—students, colleagues,
friends, administrators— who are skeptical or even dismissive
about the whole enterprise of ethics. For example, medical school
curriculum committees on which I have served occasionally em-
braced a false dichotomy between the “hard sciences”—physiology,
biology, chemistry—and the “softer” subjects covered in the social
sciences and humanities. The idea is that there is real knowledge in
the former disciplines and only conjecture and opinion in the latter
ones. Too often this caricature of disciplines and dismissal of ethics
is accompanied by a model of intellectual and social maturation
that overemphasizes the developmental tasks of adolescence and ig-
nores everything that follows. The notion that “these kids have their
ethics when they arrive. Not much we can do to change them at this
late stage” captures this psychological paradigm and the moral de-
terminism that follows in its wake. Thus conceived, the aim of med-
ical education becomes one of admitting “good” people and filling
them with the knowledge base of scientific doctoring. And a similar
case is sometimes made for other professions, such as law, nursing,
engineering, and business. Such a belief not only is overly simplistic
but endorses impoverished moral norms embedded in this indus-
trial view of education. Most people with whom I have worked do
not see themselves as morally finished products, needing only the
addition of technical knowledge. Nor do they see ethics as intended
only for the soft-minded. My hope is that the concepts and skills of
ethics described here will nurture both a conviction of the impor-
tance of ethics and a sense of being ethically unfinished and thereby
make us more open to new learning.
Finally, one occasionally hears, usually in turgid tones, the view
that while ethics cannot be taught, it can be “caught.” That is, per-
sonal and professional mentors can model good behavior, and in
that way we learn ethics by imitating our wise masters. This view
has always seemed to me a little self-congratulatory. Mentors vary

widely in their professional and personal virtues, and there is little
assurance that growing and developing persons—in the absence
of the critical reasoning tools of ethics—will copy a virtuous and
thoughtful person rather than a clever and self-serving moral im-
poster. Even the field of ethics itself shows the hazards of assuming
students will “catch” ethics. Ethics professors with notorious per-
sonal standards are not hard to find. Catching ethics is possible but
only when one is selective about the source and encouraged to get
critical distance on the behaviors being modeled.
2
Basic Skills I
There are no child prodigies in ethics. Experience is required, along

with facility in a diverse set of skills. Listed in the following discus-
sion are some of the fundamental practical skills we need in ethics.
These capacities enable us to use moral concepts and principles with
greater ease in problem-solving and, more generally, in orienting us
morally. Like cooking, carpentry, tennis, or poker, these are skills
that can be learned, practiced, and refined. Most skills require years
of practice to master. Ethical capacities are no different. They require
learning and relearning over the inevitable changes of the lifespan.
This skill list can be considered a response to the question, “Why
do ethical discussions so often go into the ditch and become unpro-
ductive and frustrating?” One answer is because those engaging in
moral deliberations fail in the exercise of one or more of the capaci-
ties listed in the following text. Without these skills, ethical reflec-
tion never gets very far.
These skills are named according to the capacity they engage in
us: probing, decentering, relinquishing, emotional, cognitive, imagi-
native, assertive, connective, and narrative. This is a basic list, not an
exhaustive one. I hope readers will refine this inventory and enu-
merate other important skills I have neglected.
Probing Skill: Interrogating Our

Moral Prehistories
“But Prof. Churchill, you’re asking me to question my faith in God,

and I don’t want to do that.”
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190080891.001.0001
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The morning of the 14th found the flotilla lying in the wake of the
flag-ship. The transports had arrived, and the troops, with the
artillery, were landed about two miles from the fort. The arrival of
the fleet, and the thousands of determined soldiers, inspired the
troops already at the scene of action with new vigor; long and
tumultuous cheers came down the hills from the army under General
Grant, which could be seen in the distance, watching the movements
of the fleet. General Grant and his staff had gone on board the St.
Louis, before daylight, and an attack by the land forces was agreed
upon, to be made as soon as the signal gun should be given from the
river. Accordingly, at two o’clock, P. M., all the vessels comprising the
flotilla, the iron-clad boats St. Louis, Carondelet, Pittsburg, and
Louisville, and the two wooden boats, Conestoga and Tyler, got
under way. They were then about two miles from the fort. The line of
battle was immediately formed, the flag-ship taking the extreme
right, with the Louisville, Pittsburg, and Carondelet at the left, four
abreast; the Conestoga and Tyler, not being iron clad, remained in
the rear, about a quarter of a mile. The fleet proceeded at a speed of
about three miles an hour, up the river. At twenty-five minutes to
three o’clock they reached the termination of a long range of woods
to the right, and came in full view of the fort.
The fortifications were distinctly visible, consisting of three tiers of
frowning batteries, on the slope of a steep hill, one hundred and fifty
feet in height. About half-past two o’clock, the enemy opened fire
from a battery about twenty feet above water level, by discharging a
32-pounder, but the shot fell far short. This was followed by another
ball of larger dimensions, which also fell short. The Union men were
anxious to show the enemy a specimen of their fighting power, but
the Commodore would not permit them to fire a gun for fifteen
minutes, until they got within certain range of the fort. At a few
minutes before three o’clock, the St. Louis opened the battle on the
national side, and the other boats quickly followed. For a while all
the shot fell short of the mark.
The boats kept advancing slowly and steadily for about half an
hour, when the order was given to slack the engines, so as to prevent
them from coming in too close range. The firing then increased to a
terrific rate on both sides. The enemy poured 32 and 64-pound balls
into the vessels with great effect, and the gunners returned their 8-
inch shell and 64-pound rifle balls with unusual skill. In the heat of
the action, a shot from the enemy’s water battery carried away the
flagstaff of the St. Louis; almost the next shot took the chimney guys
of the same boat. A well sent ball from the St. Louis soon struck the
flagstaff of the enemy, which was on the top of the hill behind the
batteries. This terrible fire lasted about half an hour, when a 64-
pound ball from the middle battery cut the tiller ropes of the gunboat
Louisville, rendering her steering apparatus unmanageable. About
the same time a shot entered one of the windows of the pilot-house
of the Carondelet, mortally wounding the pilot. Thus the control of
two Union boats was in a great degree lost. Shortly after this, a 32-
pound ball penetrated the pilot-house of the St. Louis, mortally
wounding one of the pilots, injuring two other pilots, and severely
wounding Flag-officer Foote. There were five men in the pilot-house
at the time, only one of whom escaped injury. The room was filled
with pieces of the broken wheel, chains, room furniture and rubbish
of every sort; there was no one there to take the helm save the
Commodore—no chance to call another to his aid—so, equal to the
emergency, the gallant old Commodore seized the remaining handles
of the wheel, and for a quarter of an hour acted the double part of
commander and pilot, and at last, when compelled to fall back, he
kept bow to the foe, and gave his orders as calmly and coolly as when
first entering the action.
At about the middle of the engagement, a 32-pound rifle shot took
away the flagstaff and Commodore’s pennant. In a moment half a
dozen men sprang out of the ports, caught the mutilated staff upon
their shoulders, hoisted the “blue flag” to its place, where they stood
and held it for several minutes, in the face of a most murderous fire.
Thus three powerful vessels were disabled by accidents that do not
happen twice in a hundred times. The men on board were unwilling
to give up the fight. The enemy had been driven from the lower
battery, and their fire had slackened perceptibly. What remained to
be done? To fight in such a current, with unmanageable boats,
would, the Commodore knew, be worse than folly. Reluctantly,
therefore, he ordered them to fall back.
The vessels then stopped their engines and floated slowly from
their positions. They had been within two hundred yards of the fort.
The enemy soon saw the condition of the fleet, and redoubled their
fire. They ran to the lower batteries and opened them on the retiring
vessels with terrific force. One of the guns of the Carondelet had
burst in the middle of the action, and the Pittsburg had received two
balls below water mark, causing her to leak rapidly. But they replied
well to the reinvigorated foe, and fired the last shot.
The fleet retired in good order, and anchored two miles below the
fort. The injuries to the gunboats were not very great. The principal
damage to the St. Louis was that sustained by the shot entering her
pilot-house. She was struck 61 times; the Pittsburg 47; the
Carondelet 54; and the Louisville about 40. The enemy fired about
500 shots.
The fleet fired a little more than 300, about 75 of which were 8-
inch shells.
The demeanor of Commodore Foote during the engagement was
the subject of admiration with every man in the fleet. His
countenance was as placid and his voice as mild in the heat of the
action as if he had been engaged in social conversation. He stood in
the pilot-house for a long time, watching the effect of every shot.
When he saw a shell burst inside of the fort, he instantly commended
the deliberate aim of the marksman, by a message through his
speaking tube. When the balls fell short, he expressed his
dissatisfaction in such words as “A little further, man; you are falling
too short.” During a part of the action he was on the gun-deck,
superintending the care of the wounded. In the end, nothing but the
pilot’s assurance that his vessel could not be managed with her
broken wheel, induced him to consent to a withdrawal.
Incidents on board the Louisville were not wanting. Captain Dove
had just complimented one of the gunners on a splendid shot, when
the shot that played such havoc entered his port, and completely
severed the gunner in twain, scattering his blood and brains over
Captain Dove’s person. But the Captain never blanched; he only
wiped his face, and in an instant was superintending the replacement
of another gun as if nothing had happened. Cool, brave and
determined, he was throughout the action a support to his men and
an honor to his country.
THE LAND ATTACK.
In addition to the two water batteries already described, a third
had been commenced, but was not at the time completed. The fort
stood on a hill, and within its ample lines nearly a hundred large and
substantial log-houses had been erected for quarters. In order to
prevent any lodgment of an opposing force on the hills back of the
fort, it was necessary to construct a line of defenses around the fort,
at the distance of a mile, and in some places more than a mile, from
the principal work. These outworks extended from a creek on the
north side of the works to another which entered a quarter of a mile
below. Both of these streams were filled with backwater from the
swollen river, for the distance of three-quarters of a mile from their
mouths. This chain of breastworks and the miry bed of the creeks
formed a most complete impediment to the marching of an artillery
force within sight of the main fort. This line of works was not less
than three miles in length, breast high, and formed from a ditch on
either side, so as to answer the purpose of rifle-pits and parapets. At
intervals on every elevation platforms had been constructed and
mounted with howitzers and light field pieces. Such were the works,
defended by from 20,000 to 25,000 men, that the national troops
were determined to take by assault.
Early on the morning of the 12th of February, the national troops
left Fort Henry with two days’ rations in their haversacks, without
tents or wagons, except such as were necessary to convey a surplus of
commissary stores and ammunition, and ambulances for the sick.
The expedition under the command of Brigadier-General U. S.
Grant, was divided into three columns—the division under Brigadier-
General McClernand, taking the road from Fort Henry to Dover,
running to the south of the enemy’s position; the second division,
under command of Brigadier-General C. F. Smith, taking the direct
or telegraph road to the fort; the third division, subsequently placed
under the lead of Brigadier-General L. Wallace, being sent round by
Paducah and Smithland, ascending the Cumberland, under the
escort of the gunboats. Each of these divisions consisted of about ten
regiments of infantry, batteries, and cavalry.
First Division, Brigadier-General McClernand.—1st Brigade, Col.
Oglesby, acting.—8th Illinois, Lieut. Col. Rhodes; 18th Illinois, Col.
Lawler; 29th Illinois, Col. Reardon; 13th Illinois, Col. Dennis; 31st
Illinois, Col. J. A. Logan; Schwartz’s battery; Dresser’s battery; 4
battalions Illinois cavalry. 2d Brigade, Col. W. H. L. Wallace, acting.
—11th Illinois, Lieut. Col. Hart; 20th Illinois, Col. Marsh; 48th
Illinois, Col. Smith; 49th Illinois, Col. Hainey; Taylor’s battery;
McAllister’s battery; 4th and 7th Illinois cavalry, Cols. Kellogg and
Dickey.
Second Division, Brigadier-General C. F. Smith.—1st Brigade,
Col. Cook, acting.—7th Illinois, 50th Illinois, 12th Iowa; 13th
Missouri, Col. Wright; 52d Indiana; 3 batteries Missouri 1st artillery,
Maj. Cavender commanding; Capts. Richardson, Stone, and Walker.
2d Brigade, Col. Lauman, acting.—7th Iowa, Lieut.-Col. Parrott; 2d
Iowa, Col. Tuttle; 14th Iowa, Col. Shaw; 25th Indiana, Col. Veatch;
56th Indiana.
Third Division, Brigadier-General Lewis Wallace.—1st Brigade,
Col. Croft, acting.—17th Kentucky, 25th Kentucky, 31st Indiana, 44th
Indiana, Col. Hugh B. Reed. 2d Brigade, Col. Thayer, acting.—1st
Nebraska, Lieut. Col. McCord; 13th Missouri, Col. Wright; 48th
Ohio, Col. Sullivan; 58th Ohio, Col. Bausenwein; Willett’s Chicago
battery.
By nine o’clock all the forces were on the march. The division of
General McClernand took the upper or southern road to Dover. The
division of General Smith proceeded by the northern or telegraph
road, running directly to the fort. The route lay through broken and
undulating lands. Small streams of the purest water were crossed at
every ravine. The hills were in places covered with green pines and
tall, heavy timber. The weather was mild and spring-like; the men in
admirable spirits, marching in regular order, and the surrounding
scenery almost tropical in its luxuriance. At about two o’clock in the
afternoon the advanced skirmishers of McClernand’s division came
in sight of the enemy’s tents stretching between the hill upon which
the fort was situated, and the next, on Dover ledge.
Word was passed back to General Grant that the enemy and his
camp had been sighted. General Grant at once ordered up the rear of
the column. Dresser’s battery was posted on an eminence
overlooking the tents, and a few shells sent into the camp. There was
a general and promiscuous scattering of men from the camps into
the earthworks to right and left. General Grant immediately ordered
the division of General Smith into line of battle on the ravine back of
the main elevation. A column of men was pushed up on the left of the
fort. Scouts returned saying that the breastworks could be discovered
on the extreme left. An hour or two was then spent in reconnoitering
along the various hills surrounding the enemy’s position.
This preliminary skirmish was soon over, and the enemy had fallen
back within his intrenchments, when the shades of night fell upon
the two armies. Many of the Federal soldiers, in anticipation of an
engagement, had relieved themselves of their overcoats, blankets,
and haversacks, and were altogether unprepared for the experience
of the night. But cheerfully kindling their camp-fires, under a mild
and genial temperature, they gathered around the cheerful blaze and
gradually fell into slumberous dreams of home, of conquest, or of
love.
During the night the enemy made a sortie on the extreme right of
the Federal lines, which by its suddenness created some confusion
for the time, but he was repulsed and compelled to retire.
On Thursday, the 13th, the attack commenced. The morning sun
rose brightly on the scene. The men were soon engaged in cooking
what provisions could be obtained. Several hogs running at large in
the woods had been shot for breakfast, and a sumptuous meal was
made from their flesh. At sunrise the firing of riflemen commenced.
The enemy could be descried behind his breastworks. The most
available positions were selected for batteries, and by eight o’clock a
regular exchange of shot and shell had commenced across the ravine
which separated the combatants. Taylor’s battery was on the extreme
right, next came Schwartz’s, further to the left. Further still was a
section of an Illinois battery. Across a deep ravine and in the centre
of the position was Captain Richardson’s First Missouri Light
Artillery, on the point of a ridge provokingly near the enemy’s lines.
Higher upon the same rise was McAlister’s battery of twenty-four
pound howitzers, and on the left could be heard at intervals an Iowa
battery.
The long established form of opening the fight by a contest of
sharpshooters and artillery was observed. For two hours nothing was
to be heard but the loud thuds of cannon, with the relief of a sharp
crack of rifles, and an occasional report of a musket, which in the
distance could hardly be distinguished from a field piece. Major
Cavender, of the Missouri First, sighted his twenty-pound Parrott
rifle guns. Two or three shots had been sent whizzing through the
trees, when “clash” came a shot in front of the piece. Without moving
a muscle the major completed his task, and bang! went a response.
Bang went another from the sister-piece under the intrepid captain.
A second was received from the fort, passing over the hill, exploding
just in the rear, a third burst directly over head, and the combat was
kept up with spirit. Dresser’s battery poured out shell from his large
howitzers in splendid style. The enemy held a slight advantage in
position, and had the range with accuracy. The shells were falling
fast around the batteries, doing however but little injury. A few
minutes and a round shot passed over the gun, and carried away the
shoulder and part of the breast of artilleryman Bernhard of
Richardson’s battery, killing him almost instantly. The captain
shifted his position three times during the morning, whenever the
enemy got his range with too much accuracy.
On the extreme right Schwartz and Taylor were blazing away
fearlessly. The ground between them and the intrenchments was
nearly cleared of trees, and they could observe by the smoke the
position of each other with accuracy. The firing from the batteries in
McClernand’s division was continuous. An attempt had been made
by the enemy to capture Taylor’s battery, which had been gallantly
repulsed. The rebels had reached close upon the battery, and only an
incessant shower of canister saved it from capture, the infantry not
being formed in position to support it effectually. The Twentieth
Illinois came up in time to drive the enemy into their works.
In the afternoon General McClernand determined to make a
formidable assault of a redoubt of the enemy, fronting the centre of
his right. The redoubt was the only one which could be distinctly
seen, owing to timber and undergrowth. At this point the ground was
for the most part void of large timber, the barren extending even
beyond the road on the ridge which the Union troops passed. The
batteries of this redoubt had a very perfect range, and gave the
troops considerable uneasiness, by blazing away at them whenever
they passed over the brow of the hill. Three regiments were detailed
for the work—the Forty-eighth, Seventeenth and Forty-ninth Illinois.
They advanced in line of battle order, the Forty-ninth, Colonel
Morrison, on the right, the Seventeenth, under command of Major
Smith, in the centre, and the Forty-eighth, Colonel Hainley, on the
left. Colonel Morrison, as senior Colonel, led the attack. The advance
was a most beautiful one. With skirmishers arrayed in front, the
three regiments swept down the hill, over a knoll, down a ravine, and
up the high hill on which the redoubt was situated, some two
hundred and fifty or three hundred feet in height, covered with brush
and stumps, all the time receiving a galling fire of grape, shell and
musketry, with a precision which would have done them credit on
the parade ground. The breastworks were nearly reached, when
Colonel Morrison, while gallantly leading his men, was struck by a
musket ball. The captain of the company on his right was also killed,
while the Forty-ninth fell into some confusion; but unappalled the
Seventeenth still gallantly pressed forward and penetrated even to
the very foot of the works. But it was not in the power of man to scale
the abattis before them. Brush piled upon brush, with sharp points,
fronted them wherever they turned; so, after a few interchanges of
musketry with the swarming regiments concentrated there, the word
for retiring was given. It was done in good order, by filing off to the
left and obliqueing into the woods below; but many a gallant soldier
was left behind underneath the intrenchments he had vainly sought
to mount. They were not, however, destined to die unavenged.
Scarcely, had their retiring columns got out of range, ere Taylor’s
Chicago battery opened on the swarming rebel masses with shell and
shrapnell. The effect was fearful. Each gun was aimed by the captain
himself, and when its black mouth belched out sudden thunder,
winrows of dead men fell in its track.
While this heavy firing had been heard on the right, General
Smith, had ordered the enemy to be engaged on the left. The Twenty-
fifth Indiana, at the head of a brigade, led the way. They had reached
a position on the brow of a hill where the successful assault was
afterwards made, and were met by the enemy in force, who swarmed
behind the works, pouring a deadly hail of bullets and grape into
them. The leading regiment broke in disorder after sustaining a hot
fire, and the whole line fell back out of range. The object of the sortie
had been accomplished, and the enemy’s forces drawn from the
other side, but the advantage did not result, as might have been
anticipated, in the occupation of the fort on the right by General
McClernand.
Six companies of the famous regiment of riflemen, raised by
Colonel Birge, accompanied the expedition from Fort Henry, and two
companies afterwards arrived by the transports. This was a corps of
picked men skilled in the use of the rifle, drawn from the North-west.
These hardy pioneers started out in the morning, with a hard
biscuit in their pocket and a rifle on their shoulder, for the rebel
earthworks, where they remained until relieved by a fresh gang. So
adventurous were they, that many of them crept within fifty yards of
the rifle-pits and exchanged words as well as shots with the enemy.
One piece in front of Dresser’s battery was kept in silence during
the morning by the sharpshooters picking off their gunners. At last a
shell from a Union battery, falling short, drove them away. One
valiant southerner, to prove his bravery, jumped into the rampart to
take aim; in an instant he was pierced by three balls, and fell out of
the intrenchment, where he lay till nightfall.
The firing for the rest of the day was slow, and appeared by general
consent to be abandoned. The Unionists seemed to have failed in
every attempt on the fort. Wounded men were being brought in on
stretchers; some limped along, supported by comrades, others
staggered forward with bleeding hands and battered heads tied in
handkerchiefs. The ambulances had brought in the maimed and
seriously wounded. In the gray dusk of evening men came forth with
spades to dig the graves of their fellow-soldiers, whose remains,
stiffened in death, were lying under the pale stars.
Hardly had the camp-fires been kindled for the night when a
drizzling shower set in, which soon turned into a steady fall of rain.
The wind grew suddenly colder. The weather, hitherto so pleasant,
was chilled in an hour to a wintry blast. Snow began to fall, and the
mercury sank below freezing point.
Many of the soldiers had lost their overcoats and blankets during
the day. Not a tent, except hospital tents, in the command.
Provisions growing very scarce—the muddy, wet clothing freezing
upon the chilled limbs of the hungry soldiers. It was a most
comfortless night. Not five houses could be found within as many
miles, and these were used as hospitals. Various expedients were
devised to ward off the cold. Saplings were bent down and twigs
interwoven into a shelter; leaves piled up made a kind of roof to keep
off the snow. Large fires were kindled, and the men lay with their feet
to the fire. The victims who perished of cold, exposure, hunger and
neglect, on this night, will fill up a long page in the mortality record
of that eventful siege.
On Friday, the conflict was maintained only by the pickets and
sharpshooters, General Grant having concluded to await the arrival
of additional forces, before assaulting the works.
Hitherto the investment had been made by the divisions of
Generals McClernand and Smith, about ten thousand men each,
including the cavalry and artillery. A third division had been sent up
the Cumberland, and should, by reasonable calculation, have been
opposite Fort Henry on Wednesday night. Here was Friday morning
and no transports arrived. What could have befallen them? General
L. Wallace, who had been left in command at Fort Henry, was
summoned over, and arrived on Friday evening with two regiments
of his brigade. Couriers were seen dashing along from the
headquarters to the point where the boats were expected to land.
About ten o’clock came the joyful intelligence that the gunboat fleet,
with fifteen transports, had landed five miles below the fort. The
troops from Fort Henry were pouring in, and close upon them came
the troops from the boats. The men had heard something of the
fighting, and moved up in splendid order, expecting to be marched
directly into battle.
At about half-past two o’clock the sound as of thunder, with long
reverberations in the distance, told that the river guns had at last
opened their mouths, and were paying their compliments grandly to
the rebel batteries. Now and then could be seen in the distance, high
up in the air, a sudden puff of white smoke, which sprang as if from
nothing, slowly curling in graceful folds, and melting away in a snow-
white cloud; it was a bursting shell, instantly followed by the rumble
of the gun from which it had been sent. The loud roar of the cannon
kept growing thicker and faster. The heavy columbiads and
Dahlgrens in the fort were returning the fire. One, two, three, and
then half a dozen at once! The terrible game of death becomes wildly
exciting!
The gunboats were advancing—the bombardment had fairly
begun. The cheers went up in ten thousand voices. The death-dealing
bolts of Fort Henry were falling thick and fast into Fort Donelson.
But little did the besiegers know what protection and defence nature
had laid against the ingenuity of art, which the insurgents had seized
upon to accomplish their purpose! No one considered the
importance of those great natural traverses and curtains of rock
which had been thrown up by the primeval subterranean fires, nor
what bomb-proofs and lunettes the waters of a thousand years had
worn into the sides of those hills. The area of the place was so large
that nearly the whole force could be removed from the water front,
and thus leave the shells to explode against the bleak hill sides, or
crush through the deserted huts of the enemy.
Meantime an occasional shot from the batteries surrounding the
outer lines of defence must have told upon the enemy on the other
side. The enemy replied but feebly. The entire morning had been in
anxious expectancy, neither party being willing to risk the chances of
another trial of valor. The weather was keen and frosty, the roads
slippery and clogged with stiff mud.
Saturday, which was destined to witness the grand denouement of
the painful tragedies enacted about Donelson, was cold, damp and
cheerless. The enemy, during the night, had transferred several of
their batteries to portions of their works, within a few hundred feet
of which the extreme right wing of the Federals was resting. Upon
the first coming of dawn, these batteries suddenly opened on the
Ninth, Eighteenth, Twenty-ninth, Thirtieth and Thirty-first
regiments, comprising Oglesby’s brigade, which had the advance.
Simultaneously with the opening of the batteries, a force of about
twelve thousand infantry and a regiment of cavalry was hurled
against the brigade with a vigor which, made against less steady and
well-disciplined troops, must surely have resulted in their entire
demolition.
Sudden and unexpected as was this sally on the part of the enemy,
it did not find the gallant Illinoisans unprepared to meet them. The
attack was made in columns of regiments, which poured in upon the
little band from no less than three different directions. Every
regiment of the brigade found itself opposed to two, and in many
cases to no less than four different regiments. Undismayed, however,
by the greatly superior force of the enemy, and unsupported by
adequate artillery, the brigade not only held their own, but upon two
occasions actually drove the rebels fairly into their intrenchments,
but only to be pressed back again into their former position. At last
having expended every round of their ammunition, they were obliged
to retire and give way to advancing regiments of Colonel W. H. L.
Wallace’s brigade, the Eleventh, Twentieth, Seventeenth, Forty-fifth,
Forty-eighth Illinois, and Forty-ninth Indiana regiments.
By rapid firing from the two batteries of Taylor and Schwartz, the
enemy was driven back. The Union regiments which had suffered so
much were withdrawn. The enemy had by this time concentrated
their broken troops for another attack. General McClernand had
already prepared for the emergency. Anticipating that an attempt
would be made to force a passage through, he ordered a brigade to
the rear and extreme right to form behind the regiments then in
front.
An hour had elapsed when the enemy returned in a dense mass,
renewing the fight. The battery of Captain Schwartz seemed to be the
object of their attack. On they came, pell mell, with deafening volleys
of fire. The Union batteries, well nigh exhausted of canister, poured a
storm of shell into their ranks. Ammunition caissons were sent back
in haste to get a fresh supply of canister. The Ninth, Eighteenth,
Thirtieth and Forty-first were the next regiments to be brought up.
The crest of the hill was contested with variable success for a full
hour, when the enemy was finally driven back. The line of battle was
so much confused that no connected account of the movements can
be detailed. The utmost bravery was displayed on both sides, until
the struggle degenerated into a wild fierce skirmish. The rebels
finally retired a third time.
The Union men had expended their ammunition. It was during
this lull, and before the men could realize the fact that they had
driven the enemy before them, that the fourth and last attempt was
made to seize the battery. The horses being shot, the enemy
succeeded in gaining possession of the battery of Captain Schwartz,
and were on the point of turning the guns on the Federal troops,
when Captain Willett’s Chicago battery, which had just toiled up
fresh from Fort Henry, arrived on the ground and poured in a perfect
storm of canister, just in time to save the day. The rebels fell back in
disorder, dragging the guns of Schwartz with them down the hill, and
gained entrance to the fort before the Federals could overtake them.
Some eager regiments followed them to the embankments, a few
men climbing over, who were driven back for want of support.
The regiments which suffered most in this morning’s engagement
were the Eighteenth and Eleventh Illinois; next them, the Thirty-first
and Eighth. The expenditure of ammunition must have been
excessive, on the hypothesis that each man had his cartridge-box full
on going into action. Forty rounds of the standard cartridge is
enough to fight with, and more than enough to carry with other
accoutrements of battle.
There were many instances of men who displayed the utmost
heroism in this action—some refused to be called off the field,
fighting to the last moment; others returned after having their
wounds dressed. One of the artillerymen, who received a wound,
walked to the hospital, a mile or more, had the ball extracted, and
then insisted on going back to his battery. The surgeon refused, when
he quaintly said: “Come, come, put on some of your glue and let me
go back.”
General McClernand, who had been a conspicuous mark during
the whole of this fight, bore himself with firmness, exhibiting great
decision and calmness in the most arduous situation. The tumult on
the left having subsided, he sent a messenger back to General Grant
to know if the left wing of General Smith was secure; if so he was
ready to advance. As the day waned, an occasional shot was to be
heard from the gunboats, but no satisfactory account could be
received of their operations. A lull followed the storm. Both armies
were preparing for the grand coup de main, by which Fort Donelson
was to be taken.
It was resolved to storm the fort. The honor of accomplishing this
difficult and perilous exploit on the left wing was given to General
Smith. When Colonel Lauman led his brigade in solid columns up
the steep sides of the hill, he drove the enemy from his
entrenchments, pouring a fearful volley into their disorganized and
broken ranks. The national ensign was immediately flung out from
the earthworks, and greeted with deafening cheers from ten
thousand loyal voices.
The shades of night cast their canopy over the contending hosts,
and compelled the Federal commander to delay the completion of his
victory till morning. Soon after daylight, the Federal columns
advanced in battle array, prepared to storm the works at all points,
when their eyes were greeted with innumerable white flags, thrown
out by the enemy at every threatened position.
What followed may be told in few words. The enemy seeing that
the Unionists had gained one of his strongest positions, and
successfully repulsed him in his most daring attempts to raise the
siege, took advantage of the darkness, and called a council of war, in
which it was determined to surrender. With all possible haste some
7,000 troops were dispatched up the river by night. The rebel
Generals Floyd and Pillow made their escape. The fort, with all its
contents, fell into the conquerors’ hands. More than 13,000
prisoners, Brigadier-General Buckner, with twenty Colonels and
other officers in proportion; sixty-five cannon, forty-eight field and
seventeen siege guns, a million and a half dollars in stores,
provisions, and equipage, twenty thousand stand of arms—was
glorious result, purchased at comparatively small loss. The Federal
loss in killed and wounded was 2,200; that of the rebels 1,275.
At the storming of Fort Donelson many acts of personal valor
might be recorded. An instance of reckless gallantry, and fortitude
under a most painful surgical operation, that of Hamilton, a son of
Professor Leiber, is worthy of record. This young man was twice
wounded in the battle of Fort Donelson. The first was a flesh wound,
of which he made nothing. Presently, however, he was struck by a
Minie ball in the same arm; this shattered his elbow, with the bones
above and below, and he sank to the ground, fainting with loss of
blood. He was picked up towards night, carried to a house, and
thence, over a rough road, in an army wagon, to the river bank, a
distance of three miles, which necessarily caused the greatest
suffering. Arrived at the river bank, he was put on board a boat and
conveyed with other wounded to an hospital, where his arm was
amputated. When the operation was over, the brave young fellow’s
first words were, “How long will it be before I can rejoin my
company?” At that time young Leiber was a Lieutenant of the Ninth
Illinois regiment. He was appointed aid-de-camp by General Halleck
soon after the battle of Donelson as a reward for his great bravery.
THE OCCUPATION OF NASHVILLE.
February 25, 1862.
After the surrender of Fort Donelson, on the 16th of February, it

became evident to the Confederate leaders that the cities of Nashville
and Memphis, and other important positions must soon fall into the
hands of the victorious Federal army. Public meetings were held at
both these cities, in which it was recommended to defend them to the
last extremity, and if necessary to prevent their occupancy by the
Union troops, many of the more violent and reckless of the military
determined that they should be burned, and every description of
property destroyed. At Nashville, the Governor, Isham G. Harris,
pledged himself to “shed his blood, fight like a lion, and die like a
martyr,” rather than submit to the enemy; and at the same time
efforts were made, but with little success, to organize additional
forces for defence.
During the progress of the siege at Fort Donelson, dispatches were
sent to Nashville, announcing a series of rebel successes, and on
Saturday night information was conveyed that the Federals had
again been defeated both on land and water, but they had been
reinforced and might renew the attack in the morning. With these
hopeful and exulting assurances, the city rested in peace, confident
that the light of the morning would open upon a glorious victory for
the rebel arms.
Early on the morning of Sunday the first rumors of this heavy
calamity to the rebel cause had been conveyed to the leaders in
Nashville. At first, suppressed whispers and grave countenances
indicated that something important had transpired. But the people
generally were confident and hopeful as on the evening before, and
anticipated that any hour of the day would give the signal for a grand
jubilee and rejoicing. The time for public service in the churches
drew near, and the people repaired to their several places of worship.
The churches were partly filled and the streets crowded with the
passing multitude, when a startling rumor broke the peaceful
stillness of the day. The Federals were victorious! Fort Donelson had
surrendered! Fifteen thousand Confederate prisoners had laid down
their arms to the invaders! Fear, added to imagination, ran riot in the
town.
It was said that the Federal troops had already reached Robertson,
a place about twenty-five miles from Nashville, connected by
railroad, and that the gunboats were at Clarksville, on the river, on
their way to the city. Governor Harris, taking advantage of his early
information, had hastily convened the members of the Legislature,
then in session at Nashville, which had met, and adjourned to
convene at Memphis. These circumstances becoming known, gave
plausibility to the exciting rumors of the celerity of the Federal
movements, and the people were panic stricken.
Before nightfall hundreds of citizens, singly and in families, were
making their way South, many of them having no idea why they were
thus recklessly abandoning comfortable homes, or where they were
going. Toward night it was announced that the military authorities
would throw open the public stores to all who would carry the
property away.
This excitement continued throughout Sunday night, constantly
gaining strength, aided by the destruction of two gunboats which
were in process of construction—two fine New Orleans packets, the
James Woods and James Johnson, having been taken for that
purpose. The army of General Johnston commenced its retreat,
encamping by regiments at convenient points outside of the city. On
Monday morning, great excitement prevailed; the public stores were
distributed to some extent among the people, while the army and
hospitals were making heavy requisitions, and pressing all the
vehicles and men that could be obtained to carry supplies to their
camp. At the same time, considerable quantities of stores were
removed to the depots for transportation south. Evening came, and
no gunboats—no Federal army from Kentucky. General Johnston left
for the South, placing General Floyd in command, assisted by
Generals Pillow and Hardee. The apprehensions of the near
approach of the enemy having been found groundless, it was
determined by General Floyd that the distribution of the stores was
premature. An order was sent to close the warehouses, and a force
detailed to collect what had been given out. This was done, so far as
practicable—but on Tuesday the distribution commenced again, and
continued with slight restrictions, under the eyes of the most
judicious citizens, until Saturday morning. Tuesday night the iron
and railroad bridges across the Cumberland were destroyed, in spite
of the most earnest and persistent remonstrances of leading citizens.
The iron-bridge cost about one hundred and fifty thousand dollars,
and the railroad bridge two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. It
was one of the finest drawbridges in the country.
The scenes which were enacted during the following days, up to
Monday morning the 24th, were still more exciting. The untiring
energy of the Mayor and city authorities, who throughout this whole
affair acted with prudence and zeal, was inadequate to keep the
excited people under control.
On Sunday morning, twenty-five Federal pickets breakfasted in
Edgefield, opposite the city, and during the morning eight of them
seized a little stern-wheeled steamer that had been used as a ferry,
and refused to permit it to continue its trips. Mayor Cheatham
immediately crossed in a skiff, but found no officer with whom he
could negotiate. In the evening, Colonel Emmet, of the Fourth Ohio
Cavalry arrived, and sent a message to the Mayor, requesting his
presence. The interview was satisfactory on both sides, though the
formal surrender of the city was deferred until the arrival of General
Mitchell, who was expected on Sunday night or Monday morning.
On Monday morning the city became comparatively quiet. In the
evening Generals Buell and Mitchell arrived in Edgefield, and
understanding that the authorities had appointed a committee,
consisting of the Mayor and several of the leading citizens, he sent a
message requesting an interview. The hour of the interview was fixed
at eleven o’clock, A. M. on Tuesday. In the mean time General Nelson
arrived in the city about eight o’clock, A. M., in command of a fleet,
consisting of one gunboat, the Cairo, and eight transports.
Transports continued to arrive during the day, and at night the
number reached eighteen or twenty. A large portion of this army

Ebook Ethics For Everyone A Skills Based Approach 1St Edition Larry R Churchill Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Ethics For Everyone A Skills Based Approach 1St Edition Larry R Churchill Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Ethics For Everyone A Skills Based Approach 1St Edition Larry R Churchill Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethics for Everyone: A Skills-Based

Approach 1st Edition Larry R. Churchill

Developing Writing Skills for IELTS A Research Based

Difficult Decisions in Surgical Ethics An Evidence

Anesthesiology A Problem Based Learning Approach

Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst

Alma Richards Olympian 1st Edition Larry R. Gerlach

Discovering Music Second edition R. Larry Todd

Business Ethics: What Everyone Needs to Know J. S.

Stress Management for Life: A Research-Based

Introduction: Purpose and Uses 1

8. Skills and Concepts for Ethics beyond the Lifespan 137

I am happy to acknowledge, with thanks, the many people who

focused and hopeful that something of value would emerge from

I gratefully acknowledge permissions granted to reproduce small

Why This Book?

This way of thinking about ethics as a field of inquiry and ac-

inquiry when the class or consultation ended—​was curiosity and

• a concern with curiosity and wonder as a chief impetus for

• a focus on the broad range of human moral experiences rather

This book is not a guide to problem-​solving; it is an invitation to

How to Use This Book:

Working through the book from beginning to end is one option.

Concepts are introduced after the chapters on skills and pitfalls,

If you are a student in professional education such as med-

not only in their professional roles, but also in the whole of

Varieties of Moral Perplexity

Life is messy. Situations are sometimes difficult and almost never

our courage and perseverance when a family member was in in-

Curiosity and Wonder as the Impetus

The study of ethics is in large part a response to our natural curi-

reference community: the people I look to for insight and discern-

Ethics Belongs to Everyone

The ability to act self-​consciously based on moral values is one

Another way to step back is to consult the authoritative figures

and clarify one’s ethical priorities. I mention these few to illustrate

The Humanizing Function

An ethical conversation begins with the assumption that others

of aggression. Most rituals for reconciliation, he discovered, take

discussion between health officials and parents may not result in

Ignorance, Learning (and Relearning)

Ethics is, among other things, a process of learning what moral

The Socratic Dialogues, written by Socrates’ pupil, Plato, detail

for both honorable and praiseworthy values, such as generosity,

It is sometimes thought that once we have gone through a process

discovering new ones, is an ongoing process. Every stage and role in

Sometimes moral discussions can fail to launch. These failures are

The idea that morals are arbitrary conventions, or merely custom,

relativism people can exchange differences of opinion, and this can

Most significant, moral arbitrariness or relativism is a belief

Absolute certainty can be defined as the direct counterpoint to

healthy, viable fetus for reasons of convenience late in a pregnancy.

Just like relativism, absolute certainty sucks the dialectical air

Moral perfectionism is the effort to eliminate all lapses in moral

said for parenting. Montaigne had a pungent way of expressing

The Aims of Ethics

Ethics has four aims. First, it is a way to discover and redis-

neighbors and a wide range of thinkers, poets, and literary texts

Teaching, Learning, and “Catching” Ethics

inquiry when the class or consultation ended—was curiosity and

This book is not a guide to problem-solving; it is an invitation to

The ability to act self-consciously based on moral values is one

has always seemed to me a little self-congratulatory. Mentors vary