John Locke Lord Of The Flies Analysis

509 Words3 Pages
John Locke's Ideas about Lord of the Flies

Nathaniel Cundy

“Which is better--to have laws and agree, or to hunt and kill?” ― William Golding, Lord of the Flies. The Lord of the Flies is about a group of boys who get stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere and try to form a government with horrible consequences. John Locke(1632-1704) is a philosopher who is well known for his views on state of nature, laws of nature, social contract, and natural law. If John Locke saw what was happening on the island, he would have been aghast because of the state of nature, violation of rights, and the social contract.

First of all, John Locke would be aghast at the state of nature. The state of nature is the process of imagining
…show more content…
John Locke's partial answer to state of nature is a social contract. A social contract is when a person gives up their natural freedom for the protections of their rights. In the Lord of the Flies, Jack promises people who join him, security, hunting, feasts, and games but that does not happen. Instead Jack violates the rights that he promised to protect.

Some people might say that the state of nature isn't a problem that John Locke would be aghast at. They might say that the state of nature’s solution is to form a government. In Lord of the flies this does occur. Jack and Ralph both form a government.

People might also disagree with John Locke and I on the social contract. Others might say that there was indeed a social contract in Lord of the Flies. If you join Jack, you get to hunt, feast, security, and games. That is true.

Going back to why the state of nature isn't really a problem is totally false. The solution to state of nature did occur. A government was formed, but it was not a stable government. In order for it to be stable government, the government has to protect your rights which did not occur in Lord of the flies. Again, there were several incidents where rights were not
Open Document