Nature Vs. Nurture In Lord Of The Flies, By William Golding

It is a well-known fact that humans are capable of and often do unethical things. However, the moral dilemma, known as the “nature vs. nurture” argument, reinforces the question: are humans naturally bad, or do the immoral acts of humans have to do with the values they were brought up with and the environments in which they were raised in? The nature vs nurture debate is a commonly explored theme in William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies, a book that features boys who are stranded on an island and act in iniquitous ways. Golding prompts readers to reflect on the roots of the boys’ actions and elicits the cogitation of whether it is human nature to act immorally, or whether the nurture and upbringing of humans is responsible for poor behavior.

It can be seen in Lord of the Flies that the boys are eager to have a place in any kind of social construct or group, regardless of its morals or values. Being in a group provides protection and safety from elements and others on the island, so the boys would do anything it took to protect their welfare and hopefully make it out alive. “Piggy and Ralph, under the threat of the sky found themselves eager to take a place in this demented but partly secure society” (Golding 152). Piggy and Ralph were glad to take place in the social construct of the island, regardless of its demented nature. This is because they were all dependent upon each other; they relied on Jack and some of the older boys for hunting, Ralph for shelter, and overall needed to work as a team to stay safe on the island. The boys were willing to do whatever it took in order to stay safe and be a part of a group on the island, even if it misrepresented their core values. It is also shown in the article, “The Madness of Humanity Part 3: Tribalism”, written by Marcelo Gleiser, that tribalism consists of safety and protection from outside elements. However, a common belief within tribalism is that anyone who does not belong to a certain group is a threat. “To belong to the tribe meant protection outside aggressors and an immediate sense of identity. I am part of a group that shares my values. Being part of this group makes me strong. Those who are not part of my group, that don’t share my values, are a threat. They are the enemy. If we don’t destroy them, they will destroy us. We, thus, must convert others to our value” (Gleiser). People often belong to tribes or groups for protection and a sense of identity; however, they often see those outside of that group as threats. The reason the boys could have acted the way they did is