Human nature has been debated for centuries, everyone coming up with their own theories, pulling their sources from religious texts, wars, experiments, or daily life. William Golding and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in very different times and countries were very opposite in their views compared to one another. William Golding believed that human nature was immoral and evil, and there has been evidence of this all the way to the beginning of human society. Without laws or moral boundaries, humans would plunder, steal, and murder to their hearts content, delighting in their new found freedom to let go of social philosophies imposed upon them. Rousseau, however, believed that human nature was naturally just and moral, and it was society’s laws that made them immoral. Social norms and laws create limitation and superfluous need, and it is within those boundaries that humans become enslaved to “moral inequality.” Without laws and social norms, humans will revert back to their natural goodness. It is the polar opposite of Golding’s belief. Golding’s philosophy, however, is more in line to my own, as in my opinion, Rousseau’s belief is a rather naïve outlook on life.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
... middle of paper ...
...a, strife, and chaos are the factors that tend to have us acting on the former.
Human nature; a philosophy debated heavily throughout the ages is something that is more of perspective and opinionated views rather than fact tries to explain what or who we really are at our cores. William Golding and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are philosophy on 2 totally opposing sides of human nature and it’s relation to civilized society. Golding’s Lord of the Flies gives you a good idea as to where he stands, and just how horrible humans can be without a sense of order. Civilization has been around for centuries and functions on human desires, as twisted as it may seem at times. Rousseau believes that with many freedoms, humans will only revert to their natural goodness, caring for each other as a whole for the greater good. I stand by Golding as my evidence lays in media and history.
Lord of the Flies has several themes that are the key to understanding of literature. Three of the themes of this novel are the fear, courage and lastly survival. Fear has been surrounded throughout the entire novel. With the amount of fear because of an apparent beast, many of the people on the island have changed. Most of the boys have become more violent throughout the novel and have no sense of direction as what to do next. Jack was one of those people who had changed majorly throughout the novel. Courage is one of the most important things to have mentally and physically when you’re stuck in an unknown island. Ralph’s courage in the book became strong when he had lost two of his close companions in Simon and Piggy. Survival is the best theme in this novel simply because of the lack of tools and the laziness of the people throughout the book. These themes show how great and wonderful this book is, and if you read it thoroughly, you will understand the perils and the adventure of Ralph, Jack and the rest of the boys in Lord of the Flies.
Rousseau’s vision however, assumed that people would not have, nor entertain, evil thoughts of one another. Therefore, it allowed a lot of unbridled freedom with the hopeful notion that people, when given the opportunity, would make virtuous choices for the betterment of society (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014). As history has taught us, referring to Cain and Abel as a prime example, humans are apt to make immoral
"It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways." (Buddha) Is man basically good or is man basically evil? In the popular novel, Lord of the Flies, William Goldings shows that man is basically evil, but that man can overcome those instincts if he tries. Simon, Ralph, and Piggy are prime examples of keeping their good character. In each of them there is a desire to do good. They show throughout the novel that it is possible, even when surrounded by evil, to put aside desires and keep good morals.
Often in our lives other people affect us in both negative and positive ways. In the case of Lord of the Flies, the kids influence one another while on the island, in mostly negative ways. These influences cause for mental changes in the brain. Most of the time, mental changes affect physical changes. However, in some rare occasions it is the other way around. While on the island the boys go through numerous physical and mental changes. Although mental changes are somewhat more significant than physical changes, physical changes are still very much apparent and can sometimes cause for mental change.
The main theme of Lord of the Flies is that moral nature is not instinctive in mankind. There is a capacity for evil in all people, and their morality is superficial. Nonetheless, it is this moral integrity that must continue in order for a person to be ethical, for society to be maintained, and to keep society from falling in on itself. Society holds everyone together. Without the rules and the structure, evil in everyone becomes more prominent, and ideals, values, and basics of right and wrong are forgotten. Without society's rigid rules, chaos and savagery come to light. There are also a number of secondary themes in the book such as: people will abuse power when it is not earned; people will degrade others to heighten their own sense of security; the fear of the unknown is powerful; it can make you turn to insight or hysteria. All of the themes are shown using symbolism.
The novel Lord of the Flies was full of challenges that the boys overcame in order to survive. Conflicts within themselves, with nature and with each other constantly test the children’s ability to endure. Struggles against the natural elements of the island, rival groups or fear of the unknown continually appear throughout the story. Some of the boys on the island did not survive the quarrels that they faced. They perished because they were lacking something that the surviving boys did not. The survivors had a natural primal instinct or a physical or mental advantage over the boys who did not make it. ‘Only the strong survive’ is an important element that runs through the novel Lord of the Flies because in order to survive the boys must turn to their primitive instincts of physical strength and savagery.
In the novel, "Lord of the Flies," a group of British boys are left on a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. Throughout the novel, they have conflicts between civilization and savagery, good vs. evil, order vs. chaos, and reason vs. impulse. What would it be like if the boys were replaced by a group of girls? Would they behave the same way they did in the novel? I believe that the girls would act in the same behavior as the boys in all ways because, everyone is installed with evil inside them which is their natural instinct, also because in life there is always a power struggle in all manners, and the outcome with the girls would be similar-since both sexes would plan on getting rescued.
Hobbes views were more dark, and sinister. While Rousseau’s views were bright, and uplifting. I thought Hobbes claims were more realistic, because there is proof of what happens to a civilization without a government. Rousseau believed that we should “find and innate goodness and compassion within each of us and to build a society on that goodness” (Pojman, 117). Which is good in theory, but for this to work, everyone would have to be good hearted and according to Rousseau, after living in a society, you are no longer good, because society corrupted you. He contradicts himself a lot and he did not offer any valid points on why society takes away from someone’s goodness. Except, the fact that owning property was bad, and people should not own land, but he did not explain why it was bad. All in all, I chose Hobbes, because his points made the most sense and he has evidence. He talked about humans being a machine, and we have involuntary motions (breathing, our blood moving through our body, eating, and sweating), and voluntary (speaking, moving our body parts, and walking). These things make us machines, and because machines just do what they are programed to do, like humans are. He understood this and new that we were programed to be a certain way. He understood, what humans were really capable of and that is why he was go terrified of their not being a government. He knew that we were programed to survive, and will do anything it takes to survive. But, people also get greedy, and jealous and want what is not theirs. This is what makes humans evil, the lust for other things, and the constant want for more. So, I do agree with him, because deep down we have our instincts. The instincts make us run like machines, when we need them. Every single person, if they have a will to live or self-worth, will do whatever it takes to
Rousseau writes that humanity is a mixture of good and evil. There are people who follow the education of nature and become self-reliant individuals. There are also those who tamper with nature and deprive individuals of their freedoms. They are the evil ones. Rousseau held such a position because he was raised much in the manner he wrote of, with no formal education until his twenties. His work is a production of the Enlightenment. Although he was unaware of psychology, his views on how to educate and raise a child are studied in current theories of human development. Rousseau had a mixed view if humanity was good or evil.
Human nature, what is it? Is it what defines us as humans, separating us from good and evil; or what? What ever it’d be, it relates to our daily; and in truth, human nature is the idea of good and evil. “Othello” by William Shakespeare, depicts the negative side of human nature. Shakespeare demonstrates innocence and lust together in play, in order to illustrate the ideas of ignorance, distress, hypocrisy, and honesty. Ironically, Shakespeare depicts positive aspects of human nature but later reputes them by portraying their contradictions in order to present the conclusion of humanity’s self-righteous greed. Shakespeare’s intent is to illuminate humanity’s greed which extends to human nature feeding off the idea of ostentation.
Even though there are several schools of Naturalistic ethic, they all have one major quality in common – recognition of Nature as the main guiding force of our lives. Naturalists try to understand Nature and how Nature and humanity are linked together. Adherents of Naturalism try to convince people to shift their attitude toward the need to follow the laws of nature as a principle of moral conduct. There are three major schools of Naturalism. The first school strives for “returning back to nature” in order to enjoy a simple life and find out the truth by communion with nature, which is considered to be the teacher for all people. The second school recognizes that the Nature has inner soul. For example, stoics believed that Nature possesses rational (comprehensible by human mind) and positive divine power and all events in people’s lives are predetermined by it. Thus, people should give in to their fates and react in a positive and rational way toward unforeseen circumstances because everything happens for a reason and for the best. The third school advocates evolutionary theory as the basis for ethical conduct. Followers of this theory argue that people should learn their behavior from the evolutionary model of natural world. Darwin’s law of survival of the fittest was applied to social context. The ethical conduct is considered to be right when people or government do not interfere to help weak “species” survive. As a result, the most developed, smart and enterprising people will prevail and as social evolution progresses, they will form a superior society.
Human nature is the most debated topic to date. Many people think that mankind is programmed to be evil; on the other hand people argue that it is naturally good. Nathaniel Hawthorne gave his argument with the novel, The Scarlet Letter. The Scarlet Letter showed that mankind is innately good by Chillingworth’s measures, Hester’s capitulates and Dimmesdale’s noble qualities.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
Humans are intricate. They have built civilizations and invented the concept of society, moving accordingly from savage primal instincts to disciplined behaviour. William Golding, however, does not praise humanity in his pessimistic novel, Lord of The Flies, which tells the story of a group of British schoolboys who are stranded on an uninhabited tropical island without any adults – a dystopia. Golding evidently expresses three views of humanity in this novel. He suggests that, without the rules and restrictions on which societies and civilizations are built, humans are intrinsically selfish, impulsive and violent.
Human nature has two sides to it; good and evil. Within both passages, written by Rodney Torreson and William Golding, show both side. However have a different spectrum of what is bad in nature. Regarding human nature, both Torreson and Golding suggest that humans are savages however differ in actions that determine a savage.