In Lord of the Flies, William Golding shows the progression of absolute power, and how ambition can take over one's mind. Stranded on an island after their plane crashed, the boys create their own democracy with one absolute ruler, just like many other governments throughout history. The boys voted Ralph as their ruler, but Jack slowly starts to take some of Ralph’s power, and eventually usurps him as their chief. Lord of the Flies suggests that absolute power is corrupt, and that humans are overly ambitious in wanting to take power from the person who has the most of it. Just like any large group of people, the boys decide that they “ought to have a chief to decide things” (Golding 22).
I believe that the founding fathers of our countries are just in there actions of rebellion because the British government taxed them heavily without representation(taxation without representation). They also where just because the British government forced unfair laws on the citizens in the colonies. And finally they where just in rebellion because Britain taxed them for unfair reasons. The British government was unjust in taxing the colonies. The colonies had no representative in parliament to represent them when they where being taxed.
Hobbes believed that man must escape their state of nature to be protected. Within this social contract the ruler had absolute power over the people which lead to their words and opinions never being heard. Hobbes believed that for the government to function properly, the people must obey the absolute monarchy and accept that their opinions are not being accounted. Hobbes explained, “And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; not tranferre their Person from him that beareth it…” (Hobbes in Perry, 22).
By pointing out the relation between rebellion and government, Thomas Jefferson made a very interesting statement. He believed that recurring changes in revolution had to exist to obtain a healthy democracy and government. By believing this he also believed in rebellion. Taking from Jefferson’s statement a rebellion corrects the faults of a government and more importantly is necessary to guarantee the strength of a society and supports the public freedom.
The Nashville Sit-in Movement was a very successful protest during the 1960s that helped to desegregate public areas. People of all different genders, ages and races from all around the country gathered together to form one of the biggest protests our country has ever seen. Although it was a difficult and gruesome journey, The Nashville Sit-in movement succeeded for three reasons; white businesses economic downfall, the actions and reactions of the protesters & white people, and black students willingness to take initiative. The first reason The Nashville Sit-in Movement was successful was because of the drastic effect it had on white businesses. The movement stirred up controversy and incited violence.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest revolutionary thinkers that ever existed, believed in the power of rebellion. He reasoned that conflict between government and the people occurred naturally. Jefferson “ hold[s] it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” because he believes it to be “as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” This deep quote relates to the theme of conflict since conflicts between governments and their people lead to rebellions. Furthermore, this quote indicates that conflict plays an important role in society even at the national level.
The British in the 1700s controlled a massive empire all around the world and they knew how to deal with a rebellion, but they had never had a rebellion where former British residents were the rebels. The colonists had a very extreme reaction to a handful of simple taxes the British put in place that were only supposed to help finance the previous wars in North America, most notably the French and Indian War. The British reacted very reasonably against the colonial tax resistance, and the colonists only worsened the situation as they were overreacting about very small taxes. After the British attempted to pass taxes to help finance the recent wars with France, the colonists began on their rampage against any kind of British tax on the goods they bought.
Thomas Hobbes described that life in a state of nature would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In addition, no one would be able to survive in an Anarchy society where there is no order and the safeguard of others is at risk. Therefore, governments require for citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain the benefits of the government. Thus, the government has preserved its two major purposes: maintaining order and providing public goods to the public and an uprising purpose of promoting equality. The main and oldest purpose of government is to maintain order by establishing laws to preserve life and protect property.
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
Hobbesian Theory in Lord of the Flies The question of whether man is inherently good or evil has been debated amongst religions, philosophers, and many great thinkers since the beginning of man itself. On one hand, there are those who believe we as humans are naturally moral beings, and it is society that makes us evil. However, others argue society is not only good, but needed to control our inhumane and animalistic tendencies. One of the most famous believers in this theory is English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.”
When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism. It is important that we know that the state of nature describes a pre- political society prior to the social contract.
“Jolly good show. Like The Coral Island. ”(Golding 248) The naval officer who rescues the boys in the novel Lord of the Flies compares their story to the one the boys in The Coral Island go through. Ignorant of the conflict and savagery present during their stay, he imagines they had fun and lived crazy new adventures just like in the novel, The Coral Island.
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
The secondary literature on Hobbes's moral and political philosophy (not to speak of his entire body of work) is vast, appearing across many disciplines and in many languages. There are two major aspects to Hobbes's picture of human nature. As we have seen, and will explore below, what motivates human beings to act is extremely important to Hobbes. The other aspect concerns human powers of judgment and reasoning, about which Hobbes tends to be extremely skeptical. Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs.
