Home > Lord of the Flies Summary & Study Guide > Lord of the Flies Group > Discussion Board

A recent question in the Q and A area got me thinking. One of the main themes in Lord of the Flies is good and evil... do you think anyone can be "pure evil" or "pure good"? Can a good person be brought down by a few bad traits, can an evil person be redeemed by good qualities? Have at it! 

There's something called Godwin's law which basically states that any internet discussion eventually invokes Hitler... which I'll do right now. Hitler. Totally evil? I'd say so, because there's nothing he did that could have possibly outweighed his evil actions. For example, I think he was a dog lover, but who cares?

Totally good is, for some reason, a lot harder, I'll have to think abou that one a bit more...

Certainly those theologies that believe in Satan, or a figure like him, that rebelled against the pure goodness that is God--thinking based on such theologies would believe a person could be all of one or the other.  Of course, many (eastern) theologies do not endorse this bifurcastion, but the either / or principle of western thought certainly does.  It has much to do with the Manichean principle...if anyone would care to research that idea

In reply to #1:

The short answer is, no, people cannot be all good or all evil. The somewhat longer answer is, one of this novel's strengths is that it shows us how good requires a social structure in order to flourish. These were all "good boys" who got stranded here. However, without a context and guidance, their strengths went dark.

Greg

reply to 2

 This is true, but did hitler not also bring about an end to the Great Depression? Did he not also give jobs to the unemployed, building highways and roads, some of which are still around today?

In effect, no, no one person is totally consumed by good or evil, they always have some good traits.  It is very easy, though, to just quickly put most people in a category of one or the other.

I don't think I can find good in Hitler, but I can say that the boys did not come to the island all evil. The circumstances must have psychologically damaged them, and the freedom to act on their impulses unchecked allowed the evil to reach the levels it did. But, if the accident had never happened, I do not think the boys would have participated in evil acts in a civilized setting, at least not the majority of them.

This is a difficult conversation to have without designating the standards for good and evil.  How do you classify one or the other? It's easy to point a finger at Hitler and say he was evil or possessed evil characteristics because his case is extreme - but what about all of us?  What defines whether we are good or evil or part of both?