Lord Of The Flies Ethics Analysis

Determining the Ethics of the Human Race

The battle of morality stands strong in the world. People attempt to decipher the code in which human brains churn and whir. Literature is the most accurate way of studying human behavior because, regardless of genre, it mirrors the real world. Moral standards as expressed by humans, although hard to decipher, are clearly laid out for interpretation upon closer inspection of their actions and diction. In the microcosm scenario set with young British schoolboys, Lord of the Flies author William Golding addresses this ever burning desire to understand these inner workings that subject themselves through actions of depravity or virtuosity.

Interpersonal relations reveal cues pertaining to people’s character

and intentions. How one carries himself around others is imperative to creating his full image. Background development of characters in a novel is necessary for establishing the internal factors that influence major personality traits and distinguish whether he will act morally. Golding reveals little information about the stranded boys’ background. The scant amount we do know is that they all attended a boarding school, hence the uniforms and caps. Based on the negative and snobbish connotation of boarding school and the glee the boys express at the concept of no adults, the reader is left to assume that there was a meager margin for error. In the seventh chapter of Lord of the Flies, Ralph recalls his time back home when “Mummy had still been with them and Daddy had come home everyday” (Golding 112). When mixed with his later actions in the novel, this statement brings forth a naive and childlike view of how the world works. Ralph’s persistence regarding the rescue fire reveals that he wants to be rescued by his dad that he holds in such high regard; and return to a time before these problems started arising. Therefore his intentions show his moral pureness as expressed by his longing for stronger bonds. His fear of not getting rescued and obtaining that dream eventually drove him to a shallow point of savagery.
Both irrational and rational fears are factors in determining this matter.

Although a fear of failure or a fear of immediate danger may lead to a positive outcome, the manifestation of inimical fears is not favorable; both bear upon the matter of morality. Directly from the start, Simon stays above the fear for the unknown that the other boys fall prey to. Rational thinking from Piggy can not even calm the terror. In Chapter 5, Simon says “‘What I mean is...maybe it’s only us’” (Golding 89) but faces an inability to express his ideas without laughter from the others. Simon’s ability to rise above the fear that engulfs this society keeps him safe from the insanity stemming all around him. Ironically, the ritual-like killing of Simon is described by Golding as representing the killing of the beast, the theoretical embodiment of this fear he so avidly opposed. With this result in mind, Rosenfield, the author of “‘Men of a Smaller Growth’: A Psychological Analysis of William Golding’s ‘Lord of the Flies’” states on page 3 that “...the beast is within, and the children are defined by the very objects they seek to destroy.” Contrary to Simon, the other boys stranded on the island fall victims to the imaginary beast creature that haunts every corner of the darkened island. Rosenfield addresses the time when the boys exercised violence by killing the sow and offering the best it’s head. That violence and depravity soon envelopes them and the order and democracy they once had crumbles into the sea. The pressure of the ideal society no longer plausible in these

circumstances.
Overwhelming pressure from outside sources crowd over people’s internal moral standards causing them to commit acts otherwise deemed unusual to them under alternative circumstances. Temptation like this, referred to sometimes as mob mentality, can be seen in both positive and negative ways. In the literary criticism “Power and Authority: An Interpretation of Golding’s ‘Lord of the Flies,’” David Spitz states on page 4 that the boys “...had brought that [English or Western] civilization, or what fragments of it they could remember with them.” He continues on to explain this concept further by using Maurice as an example. Previously Maurice was punished for throwing sand in another’s eye, but even now without adult supervision that guilt still stopped him from doing so. From this the reader can see that the morality of the society affects the morality of the person based on the pressure he feels to perform a certain way. In contrast, this pressure of society can become beastly (no pun intended) remarkably quickly. In Chapter 9, Ralph and Piggy look onward as the other tribe dances and “found themselves eager to take a place in this demented but partly secure society” (Golding 152). In this sense, Ralph and Piggy experience this peer pressure that pushes them to partake in this ritual that stands for everything they have stood against. There it stands; the glory of meat, unity, and brotherhood dripping in the saturation of firelight. As soon as they step in, they get swept up in the appeal that they leave barely realizing the creature they just killed was Simon. The moral of both Piggy and Ralph compromised by the stifling plea of the other tribe.
In summary, Golding’s pessimistic view of human natures lends itself as an complex answer to the seemingly simple question at hand.By the extraction of all man-made conflict inducers, Golding attempts to reveal to his readers that the depravity shown in the novel was the product of man alone. It may not be plainly obvious to notice, the general nature of humans is inherently evil plus the addition of external influence; while some prophet-like beings escape such a label.