[PHI 2200] The Ghost of Tom Joad

In John Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath, Tom Joad is an ex-convict and a murderer. But, for the most part, readers still identify him as "the good guy" in the story.

Can we make sense of this fact in the light of the three major approaches in normative ethics?

• Consequentialism: Doing X is the right thing to do because the consequences of doing X will maximize well-being.
• Deontology: Doing X is the right thing to do because it is acting in accordance with a moral rule that can be universalized.
• Virtue Ethics: Doing X is the right thing to do because it would be virtuous (i.e., doing X would manifest a virtue, such as benevolence, generosity, honesty, etc.).

If we think of Tom Joad as "the good guy," despite the fact that he is a rule-breaker, does it mean that being a good person does not consist in following rules? Alternatively, perhaps Tom Joad is not a rule-breaker after all; it's just that the rules that he follows are not as simple as "Don't kill."

If we think of Tom Joad as "the good guy," despite the fact that his actions have harmful consequences, does it mean that being a good person does not consist in maximizing well-being? Alternatively, perhaps Tom Joad's actions have beneficial consequences after all; it's just that those consequences are not immediate.

What do you think?