Louis P. Pojman uses Leviathan, (1651) author Thomas Hobbes to relate to the situation in the novel Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding’s. In the Lord of the Flies, Golding’s tells a story about how a group of young boys became shipped wrecked on an unidentified, deserted island, and became savages as a result of losing their moral compass through killing. In the mist of being saved at the end, one can only reflect on how ironic that they were saved by a Navy ship that was inadvertently doing the same thing just on a larger scale, and more civilized, than that of which the children were doing. In The Moral Life, Pojman shows Hobbes explanation of this behavioral state by stating “…Human beings always act out of perceived self-interest,
In a civilized society, certain aspects of humanity must be adhered to. Qualities such as empathy, respect, compassion, and kindness are key to maintaining order. What happens in society when these qualities disintegrate, and cease to exist altogether? William Golding’s “lord of the Flies” accurately demonstrates that in the absence of humanity, civilized society quickly evolves into one of savagery. Golding shows this evolution through the steady decay of the boy’s morals, values, and laws. The evolution of savagery begins with the individual.
In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, the beast gives the children a sense of fear throughout the story. It also shows that it is one of the children's top priorities, as they hunt for it and try to protect themselves from it. The children use the beast to work together, but as the novel progresses the group goes through a separation. The beast is an important role in the novel, having many forms of concepts about it. In the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the concept of the beast as a whole is used as fear, reality, and evil.
“There are too many people, and too few human beings.” (Robert Zend) Even though there are many people on this planet, there are very few civilized people. Most of them are naturally savaged. In the book, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, boys are stranded on an island far away, with no connections to the adult world. These children, having no rules, or civilization, have their true nature exposed. Not surprisingly, these children’s nature happens to be savagery. Savagery can clearly be identified in humans when there are no rules, when the right situation arouses, and finally when there is no civilization around us.
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts for governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life. He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principalities and a republics by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract.
In The Lord of the Flies, the morality of apparently civilized boys gradually seems to vanish in direct relation to the amount of time that they are separated from society. They never understood why they had behaved themselves before they were stranded on the island. They only repeated the moral systems of their parents just as any other perfunctory gesture. As soon as they are on their own, they begin to do what is easiest rather than what is "proper." This concept is not far from what the reaction to any person would be in this situation. If someone found that suddenly he were not longer responsible to anyone, his life would greatly change from the way it was before. People do many things to please family and friends. People only do what is expected. If moral behavior is no longer expected, it will stop being practiced.
The behavior of man can be altered when new factors are put into place. In Leviathan, Hobbes addresses these factors and interprets the nature of society when power is eliminated. Similarly, Lord of the Flies, a novel written by William Golding, demonstrates the actions of young boys when law and power is removed. In relation to Lord of the Flies, Hobbes’ assumptions on man’s native state are more correct than Locke’s.
In William Golding's Lord of the Flies, Golding shows his readers that humans are evil by nature: and without strong moral conduct, humans will be tempted to let go of their civilized self. The novel tells about a group of English boys who are stranded on an island while war is happening in the outside world. The boys make rules, and are happy with the island, but soon, everything starts to go wrong. The island starts to wear on some of the boys, and the temptations for power rise. Both the coincidental and deliberate dehumanization that takes place on the island is important because had it not been for this process of dehumanization, the boys would neither have descended into "savagery" nor followed Jack.
In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, it is evident that people act differently when put in certain situations. For example, when good people are put in a bad environment, they blur moral lines justifying the “greater good”. This can be observed through the actions of most of the boys, who misuse their power and treat people such as Piggy, Simon, and the littluns unfairly. A large portion of the biguns mistreat Piggy, Simon, and the littluns.
Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan as a testament on how to run a country. In fact, it is very comparable to Machiavelli and his works. Hobbes is a monarchist, and an absolutist as his works reflect. His work came about during political instability, as it was published in 1651. Though his philosophy of the universe is fairly elementary, his views on absolute sovereignty and commonwealths are brilliant.
Moreover, there should be no more wars and terrorist groups in the world, instead, there are constant terrorist attacks and ongoing wars around the world. One can also argue that humans are born good but are corrupted by society as they grow. This is wrong because humans are the ones who created that society in the first place… the concept of violence had to have come from somewhere, so if the society is what corrupted people and turned them into savages then that means that the humans were already savages in the first place because they created that corrupted society. In reality, people weren’t born good and corrupted by society, they were born savages and tried to create a system that would try to restrain people from committing violent crimes. That’s why in Lord of the Flies when the kids realize there are no adults on the island and there are no rules, the kids’ first thought was to do whatever they want because they felt free. The rules and laws of the civilized world were constricting them and they used this new found freedom to do everything they normally couldn’t. If humans were born good then they wouldn’t think about doing things that are not allowed in a world with laws because they would know it’s wrong, but that’s not what the kids on the island were thinking, they were thinking the exact
This paper will explore the three elements of innate evil within William Golding's, Lord of the Flies, the change from civilization to savagery, the beast, and the battle on the island. Golding represents evil through his character's, their actions, and symbolism. The island becomes the biggest representation of evil because it's where the entire novel takes place. The change from civilization to savagery is another representation of how easily people can change from good to evil under unusual circumstances. Golding also explores the evil within all humans though the beast, because it's their only chance for survival and survival instinct takes over. In doing so, this paper will prove that Lord of the Flies exemplifies the innate evil that exists within all humans.
Imagine the world without judgement, rules, and those who enforce them, the key principles in a civilized society. How long would it take until desires and craving rebel against morality? With an authoritative power ceasing to exist, civilization would turn to chaos as the glory and thrill of savagery override ethics. In his novel Lord of the Flies, Golding demonstrates that without the restrictions of society, human instinct causes the boys to defy and shun social morals.
A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.
In the book Lord of the Flies by William Golding, a group of young boys from England are evacuated out of their country due to a war. The plane is then shot down and results into a plane crash on a deserted island. The boys are left all alone with no adults, no supplies, and no one to come and rescue them. They are all on their own and have to establish a new “society”. The boys have to choose someone to govern them and that person ends up being Ralph, who had an internal struggle between what is right and wrong closer to the end of the novel. The boys turn into savages, killing each other, and showing their evil inside each of them. According to, William Golding man is inherently evil, evil is in all of us, but it is oppressed by society, and comes out when there is not anything to hold us back, civilization is what holds back evil from coming out, or it is what triggers evil inside of man.
On the first page of the Leviathan cited by Ebenstein & Ebenstein, Hobbes deals with an intrinsic part of society: equality and in-equality. Every man is equal and therefore men have matching wishes and demands. The equality is in the way of attaining our ends. "And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another." This statement builds upon a negative notion of society, which I am afraid share, although cannot be seen as completely correct. The basis of society lies not within the strength of the individual but the outcome of all individual actions. This aggregate effect will benefit all, let it be to a certain extent. It is not always in a man's best interest to pursue the clearly most beneficiary goal. Men will act in the benefit of their own interest and I think that men's nature is indeed preservation of the individual but also of the species. Therefore men will not always turn to violence but will also seek the more diplomatic ways to achieve goals. As is shown by the many medieval battles, the sum of the total is an aggravation of everyone's benefits. Then why do wars exist? The answer to this question is not an easy one to answer while trying to dispute Hobbes…so I won't. Hobbes, as I already claimed is right, to a certain extent. Real power lies not within the hands of individuals but in the hands of corporate actors, which are formed by mostly male individuals. This, I see as the main reason for battle-like behaviour. Off all men would be able to think reasonable and not in terms of power and the like then the situations of war would probably not exist. However, in the group process this is clearly not the case. To give a current day example of this one could survey the campus. In such an environment the atmosphere should be positive, as everybody will agree upon. Now then, why is the group process the other way around. Why do people within a closed group complain more frequently than others do? The reason, I think is that group behaviour is irrational and will lead to non-logical outcomes.