Different Views from William Golding and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Lord of the Flies

Two philosophers of different eras tackle the same topic, human nature, and a great argument breaks out. Is man inherently evil, like William Golding believes? Or is man good at heart but inevitably becomes corrupted by the society he lives in, as said by Jean Jacques Rousseau? Both philosophers have very strong opinions and well reasoning for what they believe. Golding’s views are displayed well throughout his novel, Lord of the Flies; a tale about strong minded, young boys stranded on an island

Amidst bloodshed and suffering it is understandable that William Golding would have great difficulty viewing men as naturally good. He argues in his novel, “The Lord of the Flies” that men need rules and society to keep peace and that if they were to leave that they would fall into chaos, but his arguments are only proven through characters he has constructed. In this debate as old as time itself, there have been others who would disagree with Golding; others who have more faith in man’s nature and less

philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that people are inherently good. Without civilizations, humans are good beings with empathy, kindness, and well-developed morals. However, he believed that societies corrupt our morals and are what make the change in us to become “evil” or “bad”. The author of the novel Lord of the Flies, William Golding, however, believed that in a primitive environment, humans are evil. Without a society watching over us, humans will become barbaric brutes. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

William Golding and Jean Jacques Rousseau had very different points of view on society. Golding thought what all humans are born evil and that is what makes society horrible. Rousseau things the complete difference he thinks that all humans are born pure, nice, and innocent and that society is what corrupts humans. I agree with Rousseau because I don’t believe that all humans are born evil. This topic about these different views on society is what the book Lord of the Flies is about. The book written

The Lord of the Flies, a book written by William Golding, is about a group of British school boys who get stranded on an island in the Pacific during the time of WWII. They elect a boy named Ralph as the leader, which causes an animosity with another popular boy named Jack. To make peace, Ralph makes Jack the headhunter for food. Still the division grows until Jack creates his own tribe calling this whole thing a game. During this, many people get killed and maliciously treated. Jack’s tribe finally

Rousseau and Golding are both philosophers and are both known for different similar topics. Rousseau is known for his first book, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, about his philosophies saying that man is good. Golding is known for his bestselling novel he ever wrote, Lord of The Flies, also expressing his philosophies saying that man is evil. Rousseau and Golding have many contrasts that fight against each other’s philosophies but was never spoken to each other because they lived in different

common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man." (Hobbes) Hobbes states that Humans are naturally evil and need a powerful government to control them. Is it true? Rousseau thinks otherwise. "In reasoning on the principles he (Thomas Hobbes) lays down, he ought to have said that the state of nature, being that in which the care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others, was consequently the

William Golding utilizes Lord of the Flies to prove that the inherent nature of man is truly savage and cannot be contained by any form of civil government. Characters, setting, atmosphere, and other elements are all used by Golding in the novel as metaphors and symbols to ultimately reveal the natural intention of man. In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, John Locke’s Concerning Civil Government , and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract, they share their own personal interpretations on man’s inherent

manage a society. These ideas go as far back as ancient Greece and the philosopher Socrates, but the most notable and widely accepted ideas on this come from the philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their ideas about how a society should be run were known as social contract theories, and although their ideas were different, they all had a common theme that would shape today's definition of the social contract. A Social Contract is basically an agreement between the members

This paper offers an analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes in order to argue that even though their political philosophy is different from ours. It still has significance in a social context and these thinkers’ are very much relevant in today’s society. Both political philosophers’ were writing during a time when there was political turmoil and rising tensions were a consistent occurrence. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Machiavelli’s political philosophy, such as historical