good vs. evil

Evil: a moral disturbance in the pattern in which the instincts of humanity follow. The motives behind such acts of facetiousness dwell on the question that impends us all: how much harm can possibly be inflicted on the fragile human soul? Is there a limit to what power a person holds over another (keeping in mind the truth that the physical microcosm of evil cannot compare to the intangible roots of the human mind)? Mental strength overrides physical capacity simply because in this world, the subtlety of slyness acquires more power of doing inner harm than a bodily brute.


With the saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” it seems as though as only half of that statement is true and the other portion contains a fallacy. Words do in fact have more power than what necessarily may meet the naked eye, it’s just a matter of how one lets it show its affect that is the tender essence unknown to us.


Exploring the human psyche in hopes of grasping the primary statement above, it is essential in this brutal society that if one desires survival, one must always be on their guard when surrounding themselves within the eccentric personalities of mankind. It is a plain fact of the natural law: people are selfish. In the end, nobody looks out for any being superior to themselves than themselves alone, thus posing a glitch in a time of crisis. Humans can be divided into two categories: the altruistic type and the type with the ego; as simple as black and white. This plays a vital role in the development of each person’s mentality. The potential the human mind possesses of mutating into pure evil is so immense in regards to the entire human race. Some distinguishable factors in which contribute to this bitter transformation include deprivation as a child, when fear morphs into relentless defense, and a grasp of human morale at an early age.



Often charisma can be mistaken for cunningness with good reason. There usually lurks something beneath the surface in every action performed by this strange species that engulfs one everyday. Take in consideration a hypothetical situation: who holds more power; a heavyset grizzly bear capable of easily taking a human life, or a meek human capable of tapping into one’s credit card account and sending someone into debt? When first looked upon, one normal person would select the bear, though think more into the situation. Debt can drive a person mad as well as any financial matter, thus burrowing insanity deep within the roots of the brain. Often the most harmful injuries are not physical, but mental. A person can only take so much before they crack and that is the case with every human alive. There is no way around it. Now entertain the previous question once more and it is obvious that death is an easier way out than the endless drilling one person can inflict on themselves or another. As Charlotte Perkins Gilman states, “Death? Why this fuss about death. Use your imagination, try to visualize a world without death! ... Death is the essential condition of life, not an evil,” death is not the worst enemy; in fact it acts almost as a relief.

All of mankind possesses the potential savage within the depths of their frame; it’s what brings out the beast in each individual that remains unpredictable every time. In William Golding’s The Lord of the Flies, many contrasting personalities reveal the indirect conflict with which burdens the entire human race with the hunger for power. Perhaps the most sadistic attribute is the subtlety of its existence and the two polar parts that inhabit a person. Jack, the leader of the choir, the self driven lad with endless spunk, poses himself as the perfect example of this imbalance and lack of stability of character persona, in regards to the majority of humanity.

Early into the novel, the trapped boys establish Ralph as their chief and Jack as lead hunter. From the moment of their first meeting, Ralph felt a strange attraction towards Jack—not in any matter of the heart—but the internal connection that would foreshadow their everso deep rooted relationship, perhaps for the worst. Jack single handedly remains as to possess the most ignorant personality, because it is specifically stated through his dialogue that the British aren’t savages and that they need rules. Throughout many instances of the novel, Jack receives the blame for the boys’ failed attempts of rescue. Ralph uses his frustration against Jack’s well-being when Jack lets the fire out. Being the desperate chief he is, Ralph needs to put the blame on someone and since Jack is ultimately responsible for the fire, Jack will receive the lecture. Again, the incident with the weak huts; Jack does not help in the creation of the shelters, so Ralph channels his lack of hope and surplus of anger through Jack, telling him that his botched hunting voyages do no good for the remainder of the boys.

In retrospect, what exactly is the make-up of a human’s personality? Though obviously each human body and soul is so completely different, it seems as though every person has the possibility of their deep rooted ugliness to surface. This is in which the second responsibility of a character is directed. Jack is Ralph’s scapegoat for every failure, but Jack, in addition, exemplifies the epitome of what lengths character study can expose. One can learn so much of the instincts of the human race just by clearly seeing Jack’s outlook on life through his actions. It is so simple to ditch rationality and the idea of ‘for the good of the people’ when the dream of absolute power morphs into a reality (due to lack of adult supervision and set ground regulations.) Jack is juxtaposition: he is the weakest character by succumbing to the horrible principle of tyranny; on the contrary, he stands for what he feels is just, towards the end of the novel. It’s as if his soft spot for humanity and mercy exists no more.

So what conclusion could one make about the majority of people through Jack’s character? It’s simple: we all have the capability of being savages. Greed and selfishness remains in all of mankind; there is no denying that. Thankfully, Jack seizes the perfect disposition as far as warning what can happen to a person’s morale. His complex two part character development serves its purpose of giving life lessons to its audience.

This is what I think. I repeated myself a lot, I know, but who cares. Atleast it shows consistency.