Hobbes Lord Of The Flies Quote Analysis

After his experience in World War 2 William Golding had the idea for his novel The Lord of the Flies, within said novel he included the philosophies of several men. William Golding was aware of the enlightenment philosophers when he wrote The Lord of the Flies, because Ralph had created a legitimate government, the rights of the people were put in danger once his social contract was broken, and once the boy's are given freedom they were corrupted.
While stuck on the island Ralph had created a legitimate government. The consent of the governed was given to him after he was elected chief. In addition when the boy’s choose to follow Jack instead he accepted that as their choice. Ralph made sure that anyone could have their voice heard via the
conchshell. The young’uns were able to express their fear of the beast, and Piggy was able to share his insight. Unfortunately Jack displeased with Ralph’s government, believed that he should be the one in power and that the boys should focus more on hunting. Consequently he decided that Ralph was incompetent and begun breaking rules. Eventually he started his own government, but the key point is he did in fact break the rules, because once he begun disobey the laws set in place, the safety of everyone else was compromised (The Lord of the Flies). There was no longer anything restricting his freedom, and the social contract was broken. This was the point in which the boys spiral into savagery truly begun.
“And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and, in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation and sometimes their delectation only, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.” -Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan).
This quote essentially captures the power struggle between Ralph and Jack. The aforementioned group Jack created represents humanity's baser instincts. Hobbes believed that humans were instinctively evil, therefore if they were given any freedom chaos would ensue, and the island truly is the ultimate freedom. After a while, Jack’s group eventually put out Ralph’s fire, and steal Piggy’s glasses (The Lord of the Flies). This shows that once these boys were given freedom, the boy’s reaction was to harm others and impede on the natural rights of anyone who disagreed with them. It was their freedom that ended up destroying their
humanity.
It is possible that Golding did not know about the philosophers, but simply had similar ideas.
It is not uncommon to find two completely separate works with similarities. While one my find traces of their ideas, no one philosopher was embodied in the text. In addition, Golding never intended to mimic enlightenment era philosophers. He modeled the book after his experience in World War 2. His book is an allegory on society and human nature. Ralph is meant to symbolize civility instilled by society, whereas Jack is the embodiment of savagery. Piggy is the representation of science in the modern era, and Simon was the few people who are truly good in this world (The Lord of the
Flies).
While it is true that Golding happening upon these ideas was pure coincidence, it is highly unlikely. Golding was an intellectual individual, and the enlightenment era philosophers are not terribly obscure. Reading the novel, or watching the film, through a philosophical lens one can see multiple ideas from many of the aforementioned philosophers. From the pessimisticism of Hobbes, to the Natural Rights ideology credited to Locke. In addition Lord of the Flies can be read as an allegory for society and war, but that is not all it is. Simply because a story contains one element does not mean it is unable to contain another. Golding had taken their philosophies and interpreted them in his own right.
In conclusion one can infer that William Golding did know about the enlightenment era philosophers as he was writing his novel The Lord of the Flies. One may come to this conclusion because Golding created a legitimate government, shown how the breaking of a social contract may endanger the natural rights of the governed, and how humanity's most basic instinct is one of savagery.