Leviathan & Lord of the Flies: Evil by Blood, Monarchy by Choice
Many philosophers believe that a correct government can make a strong society. However, these philosophers do not agree on what form of government is the most “correct”. English philosopher John Locke believes that Man is inherently moral and that the purpose for government is to grant the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people. Another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, however, holds the belief that mankind is naturally evil and that society needs an absolute central authority to contain this evilness and grant its people with the common protection. Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, when there are no rules and everyone is granted equal
…show more content…
Both Leviathan and Lord of the Flies suggest that all humans need a commonwealth granting protection from this inherent evilness within all men. In a passage from Leviathan, Hobbes states, “But as men, for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves thereby, have made an artificial man, which we call a commonwealth” (Hobbes). In a similar fashion, William Golding constantly demonstrates throughout Lord of the Flies that the boys try to seek protection from their “beast”. One example is in Chapter Five, when Jack suggests to “hunt” the beast down. Jack says, “We’re strong-- we hunt! If there’s a beast, we’ll hunt it down!” (Golding, 91). Golding conveys that evilness is present everywhere, and so is one’s struggle to protect themselves from that evilness. From the beginning, the adults waging the war (that cut the boys away from the rest of the world) shows that they want to protect themselves from the unjust; later, on the island, the hunts show the boys’ need for protection from the “beast”. This is demonstrated in a literal way, as the boys know that they are able to “hunt the beast down”. As has been noted, similarly, Hobbes states that all men, regardless of differences, need a commonwealth “attaining… peace and conservation of themselves”. This commonwealth, later according to Hobbes and Golding, should be ruled by one completely powerful source, as it is the most efficient approach to grant …show more content…
In his passage from Leviathan, Hobbes states, “... [people] they have made artificial chains, called civil laws, which they themselves, by mutual covenants, have fastened at one ends to the lips of that man, or assembly, to whom they have given the sovereign power, and at the other to their own ears” (Hobbes). Hobbes argues that the most efficient way to grant people ultimate protection is to establish one sovereign power to govern them. Therefore, all evil impulses in society would be controlled and overpowered by the greater power, making harmony possible for the society. As the boys fully join Jack’s tribe toward the end of the novel, Jack’s power is at its highest point as it embodies Hobbes’ idea of a complete monarchy. In Chapter 10, two boys from the tribe, Robert and Roger, discuss Jack’s absolute power that he has over the group: “ [Robert says,] ‘He’s going to beat Wilfred.’ [Roger asks,] ‘What for?’ Robert shook his head doubtfully” (Golding, 159). Jack has turned into a monarch, ruling with complete power as the boys are punished for no logical reason. He uses the boys’ fear toward the imaginary beast to control them, giving them an imaginary protection against the creature as well. Golding frequently displays that Jack’s suggestion of hunting this “beast” down brings the
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
During an assembly once, Jack declares: “We don’t need the conch anymore...It’s time some people knew they’ve got to keep quiet and leave deciding things to the rest of us” (Golding 101, 102). In this section, Jack proclaims how most people accomplished nothing speaking to the audience and the decisions should be left to the leaders, an anti-democratic idea. Desirous for power, Jack believes himself to be among the most useful on the island, even though he is clearly selfish and incompetent, never accomplishing anything outside of hunting. Proposing the idea that somebody as corrupt as Jack may try to consolidate power as a leader, or even an absolute ruler, Golding challenges the very core of the idea of absolute monarchy. The full effect of Jack’s “leadership” is shown near the end, when he and his “tribe” have completely split off from Ralph’s group. During this time, one of the hunters said: “[Jack’s] going to beat Wilfred up….[Jack] didn’t say [why]...made us tie Wilfred up” (Golding 159). Jack has ordered his hunters to tie up one of his hunters for no reason, and proceeds to beat him up as a scare tactic for the other boys. He does this solely because he just has the power to hurt others, which he demonstrates once again when he goes on a hunt for Ralph later in the story. This event clearly shows Golding’s opposition to absolute rule, as Jack acts selfishly and arrogantly, and most of the decisions he makes are completely useless to the survival of the group. All his hunters unanimously respect him out of fear, or as Hobbes described in his support of a monarchy, universal awe. In the end, while all the citizens obey a common leader and do not argue among themselves, the tribe still remains broken and unproductive, unified under a corrupt leader. It can be argued that Golding’s
When placed on a deserted island, a group of strangers banded together to try to survive. They decided on a leader, problem-solved, fought off a beast, and formed their own society, even if it was somewhat flawed. This was the situation in the famous TV show, Lost. The Lord of the Flies and Lost are similar in these many different ways, with the exception that the show featured a tribe of adults instead of children. That just proves how difficult it is to maintain order in a society; even the adults struggled with keeping it peaceful and civilized. In Lord of the Flies, William Golding presents a broken society of savage boys fighting one another to suggest that man’s capacity for evil is brought out by the need for power and control.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
The final sentence of that passage, “And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short,” seems to sum up what Hobbes has been leading up to in the first twelve chapters of Leviathan: that without a sovereign power, without Leviathan, the natural life of man is simply horrible. It is a life in which people naturally and constantly seek to destroy one another.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.
“"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.” In other words, Hobbes theorized that men are naturally evil, and that without a strong force to keep them in check, men would live by “the laws of nature…partiality, pride, revenge and the like.” (Thomas Hobbes.com)
The form of government proposed in the theory outlined by John Locke is much less restrictive on the rights of the commonwealth than the theory described by Hobbes, while at the same time providing equal guarantees of protection. Therefore, society today would undoubtedly function best under the ideas of Locke given that we live in a world where freedom is not only expected, but demanded. The absence of freedom, as described by Hobbes, would only create greater struggles for power resulting in the transition of mankind back into the state of nature which we so wish to escape.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
“Maybe there is a beast… maybe it's only us” (Golding 80). Referencing the savagery of human nature, this statement is one with great accuracy. While reading Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding, many themes and problems presented themselves. The book really highlighted the use of power, and the types of people using it. People in society, whether they want power or not, can use their authority without the best intentions, corrupting themselves and others into inhumanity. For example, Jack uses his urge for authority, and eventually his control, to create an extremely savage tribe of boys, by pushing his own wants and laws onto them. This type of power can demoralize many people, including the ultimate
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that person were naturally good and once they were born, they were empty slates which makes them learn from their experiences instead of just being outright evil. John Locke believed in democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes believed that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke States that people can be trusted since all people are naturally good but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will collapse because the king was too
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.
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.