Thomas Hobbes And William Golding's Lord Of The Flies

1260 Words 6 Pages
“For a while, the constraints of civilized society keep things peaceful, but soon their system unravels into brutal chaos” (Pojman, 67-68), this is an excerpt that Pojman discussed pertaining to the novel Lord of the Flies, written by William Golding. This quote exemplifies Thomas Hobbes idea on the state of nature and how there can be no structure and stability without a governing force. Another philosopher that challenges Hobbes’ ideas is John Locke, who believes humans would be capable of keeping stability and structure without the social contract to the government. I will prove how Hobbes’ idea is significantly better than Locke’s theory by talking about equality, liberty, rights and morality. I completely agree with Thomas Hobbes and how …show more content…
He states that nature makes humans equal from the start as so nobody is smarter or stronger from the beginning, but by how we allow ourselves to become. According to Hobbes, the state of nature has “no common ways of life, no enforced laws or moral rules, and no justice or injustice, for these concepts do not apply” (Hobbes, 66). In this quote he means that there is society would be incapable of existing except with the power of the state. He has the idea that humans would be incapable of governing themselves because eventually everyone would break out into chaos and lose all order they had. Men are animals and will do as they please to get themselves ahead of everyone else, whether it be for power, money, or fame. This is portrayed perfectly in Lord of the Flies, as the boys stuck on an island are able to maintain structure for a short period of time until they all start wanting the conch, which signifies power. Even in the real world, if we didn’t have structure and everybody wanted the same thing, there would be …show more content…
First, Hobbes has this idea of a social contract where we give up our rights to the government, as they make the rules we must live by so there can be stability and order. This social contract is individuals basically selling ourselves to the government in return for our lives. As brutal as it sounds, I agree with it and it is something we do. We live by rules in the United States and expect to be protected, and treated fairly in return. Locke takes a different view on rights as he believes all men have rights by the natural law, and don’t need to be governed by anybody with higher power nor can their rights be stripped from them without cause. Men have the right to punish others to a certain degree if they believe they have done wrong. Lastly, is the idea of morality and how these two philosophers differ in their beliefs. Hobbes’ view on morality is that there would be no morality without a government because there would be chaos. This is very similar to his view on rights, as the social contract tells us how moral we are as well. Our morals are decided on how society views our beliefs so if we agree to everything within the social contract and follow rules then we are deemed moral. On the opposition, Locke’s opinion on morality would be that everybody is moral until deemed immoral, and people can be trusted to govern themselves without a power over them controlling what

Related Documents