How are Piggy's rights taken advantage of for the sake of the group? Was it fair?
Piggy's rights were taken advantage of if you believe that one's individual liberty is more important than the right's and obligations one has to a society as a whole. One could argue that the use of Piggy's glasses to ignite the fire was more important than his use of them for his own eyesight. What obligation (if any) did Piggy have for the greater good? Should their use been offered up by Piggy and if not, then the society would have to respect his individual and exclusive use of his own property? On the other hand, those who champion an individual's right would argue that Piggy was under no obligation to provide his glasses for use by the society. As it was, he was not given the choice. Had the glasses belonged to Ralph or Jack, perhaps there would have been a more "democratic" approach to their use. Because Piggy was perceived as a weak member of their society, his glasses (and their subsequent use) were usurped by the group. This goes to the Machiavellian notion of "the ends justifying the means." In either case, a logical arguement could be made for either case.