Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Evil versus goodness
Lord of the flies analysis paper
Evil versus goodness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evil versus goodness
Are Humans Inherently Good or Evil? How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo. Humans are inherently evil. Human nature is to take leadership when there is no “power” figure. This, in some cases, may be a good thing if the leader knows how to control his power and the things around him, but most of the time it turns out bad and they become similar to a dictator. In Lord of the Flies just after the boys’ crash on the island, they have an assembly to decide what will happen next. In the assembly, one of the many topics brought up, was who should be chief. In the midst of a near argument, ...
Through the progression of William Golding's Lord of the Flies and the article, “Are Humans Good or Evil” by Clancy Martin and Alan Strudler, a multitude of undeniable evidence is provided to prove that humans are in fact inherently wicked. In Lord of the Flies, a human being’s savage nature and primal instincts are effectively portrayed through the development of Jack, the lead hunter in a group that gets meat for the boys. Little Jack Merridew, who seems to be nothing but a naive and obnoxious chorister, becomes one of the most malicious and violent boys on the island. Jack's wilder side shows itself the most when he goes hunting. Making one his first kills brought such exhilaration, satisfaction, and pure bloodlust, that it drove him to insane limits,
Shirley Jackson’s short story “ The Possibility of Evil” is about a little old lady named Miss Strangeworth. She thinks she’s in charge of the town and to make sure it’s free from all evil because her grandfather built the first house on Pleasant Street. At first Miss Strangeworth is a nice little old lady, worrying about people and wondering what others are up to. Then in the middle of the story she becomes a little rude to a few of the townspeople. In the end Miss Strangeworth thought she was getting rid of the evil in the town, but in reality she was causing evil in the town by showing her true colors and being extremely mean and cruel to others. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover because people aren’t always what they seem to be.
There are always people who, in a group, come out with better qualities to be a leader than others. The strongest people however, become the greater influences which the others decide to follow. However, sometimes the strongest person is not the best choice. Authors often show how humans select this stronger person to give an understanding of the different powers that people can posses over others.
Leaders have responsibilities to their people; a responsibility to protect and to nurture them. Leaders can reject their citizens needs because they believe that their wants are more important end up destroying the very society they rule. As shown in the novel Lord of the Flies when Jack rejects his responsibility of nurturing and giving the boys a home because he believes his lust for power, which provides him with a sense of security, is more important than the needs of the boys for affection and protection, allowing him to use the boys as objects to accomplish his own desires. This eventually leads to the destruction of society.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
Can a mass of networked neurons produce moral human agents? I shall argue that it can; a brain can be morally excellent. A connectionist account of how the brain works can explain how a person might be morally excellent in Aristotle's sense of the term. According to connectionism, the brain is a maze of interconnections trained to recognize and respond to patterns of stimulation. According to Aristotle, a morally excellent human is a practically wise person trained in good habits. What an Aristotelian theory of ethics and a connectionist theory of mind have in common is the assumption that the successful mind/brain has the disposition to behave appropriately in appropriate circumstances. According to Aristotle, the good person knows the right end, desires and chooses to pursue it, and recognizes the right means to it. Thus the good person's brain must be able to form certain moral concepts, develop appropriate behavioral dispositions, and learn practical reasoning skills. I shall argue that this collection of the brain's cognitive capacities is best accounted for by a connectionist theory of the mind/brain. The human condition is both material and moral; we are brain-controlled bodies with ethical values. My essay seeks to understand the relationship between our brains and our values, between how the brain works and how we make moral decisions.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the reason this is the case is because people are selfish and evil and that they protect their interests really well by using certain tactics to make sure other people devastate their needs and wants. Also, without a leader, these people would be very chaotic and attack one another of many things when there isn’t any government in charge.
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
Friedrich Nietzsche once provided one of the truest opinions on power that the world has ever heard when he said, “All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth”. The promises and truths that those who gain power spread to their people are not always for the greater good. The worst leaders of people are the ones that put more effort and thought into jerking off their own ego rather than putting any real heartfelt effort into helping their people. These sociopathic evil dictators use their power to try and brainwash the minds of people who have to live under them with their own beliefs and hidden agendas, foolishly believing that they are a “savior”. There has yet to be a situation with a leader of a community who has this type of unchecked power and influence with a happy ending. Perhaps the greatest story ever written about good vs. evil, madness, abuse of power along with influence, and nature just might be Heart of Darkness. Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad tells the story of an agent named Marlow, who experiences hellish conditions and behaviors whilst trying to rescue a man named Kurtz, who turns out to be quite a handful. Throughout this journey the moral ramifications of both Kurtz and Marlow’s actions are left to be interpreted by the audience after Kurtz goes mad and becomes the catalyst of the events that transpire throughout the plot. Conrad uses his real life events along with themes of greed, power, and obsession to show what causes Kurtz who acts a symbol for the leaders of the real world to go mad and abuse power.
Leadership is something that has been around since civilization. You would think that an idea so old would be straight forward but, we can see completely different ideas of what a leader, good or bad, should look like. While some of these stories may be fictional, they line up with a historical timeline of expectations. We can also see how the role of a king and how their duties have evolved in real life. The Epic of Gilgamesh shows us how to control your power. In 1 & 2 Samuel, we see what makes a ruler great and obstacles they have to over come. When we read The Theban Plays we saw how smart a ruler had to be to please his people. While all of these leaders may seem great there are plenty of reason that makes them not great. They
The leader will always take advantage of his power. Power causes the leader to make decisions, that will only better himself. "... Boxer was being sent to the knacker's." The pigs killed an animal just so that they could make some money. The power led them to this decision, they could kill Boxer, make some money, and no one would ever find out. Everyone has heard about the golden rule: "whoever has the gold makes the rules." This applies to "
Large groups of people are subject to a phenomenon known as groupthink which is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2008). The responsibility that comes with wielding that much power over a group of people can be heady and needs to be taken seriously for the simple fact that it can be abused. Lack of responsibility is easy to see as multiple examples are spread throughout history; Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin are great examples of abuse of power, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandi exemplify how this responsibility can be used for the greater good as
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.