The true nature of humans has always been a mystery to mankind. Most would like to believe that men are inherently good, and that we will take the higher road if given the option. William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (LoF) follows a group of young schoolboys left alone on an island to show that when man is stripped bare, only uncontrollable savagery remains. Also, no form of government can control the way men truly are. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes shows a similar theory about the nature of mankind in Leviathan as savage and without morals; however, he advocates for an absolute monarchy, believing that men can be controlled if they willingly give up their power. Other philosophers, John Locke in An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and
…show more content…
By using a variety of symbols and characters, he proves this statement in LoF. The beast, the center of the boys’ fear, is a representation of the savagery that lies within every human. “[T]here rose before his inward sight the picture of a human at once heroic and sick” (Golding 103). As the novel and it’s characters develop, due to being a godly figure Simon is the only one who sees what Golding and Hobbes see. He sees his friends and fellow classmates turn into what they feared, turn into what society has been trying to suppress. Slowly but surely, each boy gives in to his id, even Piggy and Ralph who are so set on maintaining their civilization - humane behavior and good manners - give into their savage nature at some point. “Piggy and Ralph, under the threat of the sky, found themselves eager to take a place in this demented but partly secure society.” (Golding 152). Thomas Hobbes also examines how men are selfish creatures. Believing that when it comes down to it everything humans do is either out of competition, self defense, or wanting approval. Humans never do anything that will not benefit them personally. “[I]f any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” (Hobbes 1). Hobbes is not convinced that humans can share things peacefully and not strive to be better than one …show more content…
Rousseau believes that men are inherently good while Locke believes men are neutral, they start off blank and can be manipulated through experiences into being good or bad. People find comfort in believing what Rousseau believes, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau §1). Rousseau blames government for the corruption of men, convinced that without/before government humans were free and would do good by one another. Frey, who wrote a critical analysis of Rousseau’s work, agrees that “society breeds inequality and selfishness because society involves the acquisition of power and private property” (Frey). Locke thinks that humans are neither good nor bad, they determine how they want to live. “For the law of Nature would...be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of Nature had [the] power to execute that law” (Locke ¶ 7). Locke has come to the conclusion that if human nature is a law it can be changed by those who must abide by
By using a variety of symbols and characters, he proves this statement in LoF. The beast, the center of the boys’ fear, is a representation of the savagery that lies within every human. “[T]here rose before his inward sight the picture of a human at once heroic and sick” (Golding 103). As the novel and it’s characters develop, due to being a godly figure Simon is the only one who sees what Golding and Hobbes see. He sees his friends and fellow classmates turn into what they feared, turn into what society has been trying to suppress. Slowly but surely, each boy gives in to his id, even Piggy and Ralph who are so set on maintaining their civilization - humane behavior and good manners - give into their savage nature at some point. “Piggy and Ralph, under the threat of the sky, found themselves eager to take a place in this demented but partly secure society.” (Golding 152). Thomas Hobbes also examines how men are selfish creatures. Believing that when it comes down to it everything humans do is either out of competition, self defense, or wanting approval. Humans never do anything that will not benefit them personally. “[I]f any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” (Hobbes 1). Hobbes is not convinced that humans can share things peacefully and not strive to be better than one …show more content…
Rousseau believes that men are inherently good while Locke believes men are neutral, they start off blank and can be manipulated through experiences into being good or bad. People find comfort in believing what Rousseau believes, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau §1). Rousseau blames government for the corruption of men, convinced that without/before government humans were free and would do good by one another. Frey, who wrote a critical analysis of Rousseau’s work, agrees that “society breeds inequality and selfishness because society involves the acquisition of power and private property” (Frey). Locke thinks that humans are neither good nor bad, they determine how they want to live. “For the law of Nature would...be in vain if there were nobody that in the state of Nature had [the] power to execute that law” (Locke ¶ 7). Locke has come to the conclusion that if human nature is a law it can be changed by those who must abide by