Morality of Hobbes and Calvin in Lord of the Flies

What is the Purpose of Morality?

Hobbes viewed morality as a form of social control, instituted by society to prevent every man from being against every man (p. 36). In other words, morality was a human construct. What Lord of the Flies shows is that nature represents two forces—two dynamics—two spirits: one seeks to be upright and to serve the common good; the other is self-centered and self-indulgent, obeying only the force and violence of impulse. These two forces have to work together if society wants to keep itself from tearing itself apart, so Pojman’s argument goes. Indeed, in Golding’s Lord of the Flies there is some struggle between the boys on the island, as the group splinters and a power play for authority commences. One boy—Ralph—tries to adhere to the old world morality embodied by civil society as it was known back home—he tries to instill order and good governance with the conch and the need to keep the fire going. Jack on the other hand represents a different kind of spirit or force or law—one that is more interested in serving the self, the whimsical desire for instant satisfaction—whether it is pulling a prank on Piggy or abandoning the fire to satisfy a sudden desire to hunt for meat. Jack represents an animalistic sort of nature, a fallen nature, a depraved nature that respects nothing but force. Jack is constantly challenging Ralph and is quick to use violence when he feels threatened, charging Jack at one point with a spear, and later trying to hunt him down with his own followers. In the novel, Ralph represents common sense but also the voice of a fading, failing civil authority. In short, Goldman suggests that Ralph is going to lose. If morality is a social construct, as Hobbes suggests, it is doomed to fail at some point, because human nature is itself flawed. Pojman relates Golding’s novel to Hobbes’s account of morality by describing it as the antithesis of The Coral Island, a Catholic response to Calvinism of the 19th century. Unlike The Coral Island, which suggests human nature might be fallen to some degree but it is nonetheless redeemable, Lord of the Flies—so Pojman contends—is dystopian and suggests that human nature is fallen and held in check only by the social rules, and those must be backed by force in order for compliance to be maintained. Thus, Pojman states that “Jack overthrows Ralph as the leader, and with him, human rules” (p. 32).

Yet Pojman gives away the actual connection between Lord of the Flies and The Coral Island, which is there in spite of whatever reason Golding had for writing his book: Jack and the boys become like the cannibals in the 19th century novel, thirsting for the blood of Ralph. The only real difference between the novels is that in the earlier one missionaries arrive to do some good. In Lord of the Flies, there are no missionaries, and savagery takes the day—at least until “civilized” British show up to save the children. But really, after all, the children are merely representing the shallow civility of their elders who are themselves at war with their neighbors. The Coral Island represents its author’s sense of Catholic morality; Golding represents in Lord of the Flies his sense of Hobbesian morality, which is quite different.

It is the nature of human nature that the novel attempts to describe, according to E. L. Epstien, whose comments are reference by Pojman in his article. As Pojman explains, “civilization is weak and vulnerable to atavistic, volcanic passions” (p. 32). Yet Golding suggests there is a spiritual malevolence at the heart of this nature—and Pojman points out that Simon (the symbol of spiritual consciousness) is the first to be slaughtered by Jack’s group of wild boys. If Simon represents spirituality, Piggy meanwhile represents human philosophy—but his end is pathetic; first his glasses are stolen so that he cannot see, then he is crushed by a rock. Pojman notes that Simon’s explanation for the darkness in human nature does not have its source in Beelzebub (Satan) but rather “only us,” i.e., humans have a dark nature—just like Calvin said (p. 33). And this is where Pojman connects the novel to Hobbes: Hobbes contended that human beings act out of self-interest, and the true state of nature is “insecurity” (p. 35). This insecurity is demonstrated by the boys on the island and “morality is [merely] a form of social control” (p. 36). Obviously, this reading supports the idea that Lord of the Flies is antithetical to The Coral Island and its view of morality and human nature. However, “where there is no power able to over-awe them all,” states Hobbes, men will find only grief (p. 42). The author of The Coral Island simply suggests there is a good power over all, while Golding suggests it is more likely a bad one.