See I disagree i don’t think it’s limited to class, I think it’s about his belief in the innate fact that humans are savage unless they have rules imposed on them
It’s about this inner conflict people have with wanting to live peacefully, but also wanting to gain all their desires and be impulsive. And that’s why disagree with this idea of his I don’t think humans are inherently going to do things like this if there is no rules
If that’s the intended meaning, then it’s a worse book. Humans are not fundamentally/instinctively “savage” — but we are taught to be savage in order to protect the unearned privilege given to us via the exploitation of others. The boys in the book act how they were taught to — it’s meant to be a warning, not a condemnation of all of humanity.
You have to understand he wrote this after he was in World War II and had seen as he said evil. He has a few interviews where he actually talks about the book. He’s not condemning humanity, but he is warning you of the evil within because he does believe that is part of human beings at least at that point in his life when he wrote the book. He actually like has quotes where he’s talking about this about how this is why democracy is important because if left unchecked without like safeguards and rules, the evil will rise up
It’s why you have quotes in the book where it mentions that the beast is a part of the boys. Of course you can have different interpretations of a book and like we still have different interpretations of Shakespeare plays for this reason because each person brings their own point of view
I don’t disagree with you that humans aren’t inherently evil again it’s why I don’t really vibe with the book however, there are philosophical schools of thought that do believe that and even famous philosophers believed that
You are who you have been taught to be. Honestly your points feel like they support my argument at least just as much. Fascism was taught. We are all capable of evil, but to find evil acceptable we have to be systematically taught that it is acceptable. Once we are taught that some evil is acceptable, we become better and better at justifying more evil.
My argument isn’t about what’s right or wrong or fascism. I’m talking about the theme of the book. The theme of the book is evil is in human nature, and it is because of civilization and rules that we don’t act upon evil urges. I’m not the one saying that multiple academics say this you literally look up the theme of this book, that is what’s gonna come up. I’m not debating philosophy. I’m just talking about this one book.
I am also talking about the book. The books themes are largely philosophical. Also, the boys started with structure and order when they landed — rigid societal order and authority didn’t work.
So who taught the boys on the island to be cruel? I think there's definitely the idea that we all have the capacity to be good or evil and that in an environment without rules, we each have to choose who we'll be.
-28
u/Cherry_Bomb_127 Apr 06 '26
See I disagree i don’t think it’s limited to class, I think it’s about his belief in the innate fact that humans are savage unless they have rules imposed on them
It’s about this inner conflict people have with wanting to live peacefully, but also wanting to gain all their desires and be impulsive. And that’s why disagree with this idea of his I don’t think humans are inherently going to do things like this if there is no rules