Survival of the Fittest

Aidan Williams

There is no such thing as objective responsibility. Despite our social biology, the very nature of our existence leads us only to pursue things that directly affect us in positive ways. Though we live in an illusion of empathy and selflessness, there is no such thing as a truly selfless action. Every action we take is entirely self-serving in some form or another, and the only responsibilities the “strong” have to take care of the “weak” are those that we give ourselves in a self-absorbed sense of superiority.

This becomes apparent in Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, as they introduce the character Piggy. Piggy is a fat, asthmatic boy, who can barely see without his glasses. Ultimately, in a survival setting, he is a detriment to the boys survival. As he says, “My Auntie told me not to run… on account of my asthma.” However, he has one thing that the boys need: His glasses. This gives the boys a reason to take care of him, and they do. They keep him alive for a long time. However, as soon as he outlives his usefulness, they take his glasses, and they kill him.

So, what is responsibility? Well, taking a step back, this ultimately boils down to subjectivity versus objectivity. As conscious creatures, humans do not live in an objective world. Conscious beings see the world through the senses, and see the world through their own perceptions, and cannot see the objective world. Now, what does this mean for responsibility? Well, this means that responsibilities exist only as the ones created by living, sentient beings. So, what responsibility do the strong have to take care of the weak? Well, the strong only have the responsibility that they create for themselves. However, sometimes this paves the way for people to pretend to create their own responsibilities as a way to mask an ulterior motive.

This was seemingly the case in the USA’s invasion of afghanistan following the September 11th attacks. By the end of September, 2001, the Bush Administration had its troops on the offensive in the Middle East. Only a few months had passed before President George W. Bush said the following in the State of the Union: “In four short months, our nation has… captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan’s terrorist training camps, saved people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression.” Saved people from starvation. These were the things he was proud of accomplishing in the four months that United States troops occupied Afghanistan. Now, this seems good, but, ultimately, it was not the purpose of the invasion.

The occupation was a direct response to the attacks on September 11th. However, people in Afghanistan were suffering starvation and brutal oppression before the invasion and the attacks. Helping the people was not the intention of the administration. It was not the intention of the troops deployed. It seems that the people helped by the troops were simply in the right place at the right time, and it gave Bush a chance to pat himself on the back for his efforts helping the ‘weak.’ The invasion came from a place of vengeance, and while it helped many people, it was entirely coincidental, and did not reflect the United State’s efforts to end world hunger.

Imagine Piggy is Afghanistan, and the rest of the boys are the Bush Administration. The boys could have said that they take care of Piggy because they have a responsibility to. Being stuck on the island, they could have said that they have a responsibility to take care of their own, and that since Piggy was their friend, they were responsible for his wellbeing. However, this wasn’t true. They kept Piggy alive because his glasses were the boys’ only way of starting a fire. His glasses kept him alive for a long time. However, as the boys gave in to their reality, and fell farther away from civilization, realizing that they weren’t actually responsible for Piggy, they realized that they could steal Piggy’s glasses, and then, having done so, they killed him, as they no longer needed him. Just as boys killed Piggy as soon as they didn’t need him, the United States killed many civilians in the Middle East once they had gotten recognition for helping them.

While there is a fair bit of controversy surrounding this issue, there is a fair amount of evidence to back up the claims that United States soldiers killed Iraqi civilians. One incident, known as the Al Ishaqi Massacre, was the accused deliberate murder of eleven Iraqi civilians, before blowing up their home. While it was written off by the Pentagon as an action against Al Qaeda militants, five out of the eleven people were children, the youngest of whom was said to be only five months old. However, these were not the stories we were told. Rather, we were told about the soldier’s heroic acts helping and saving civilians, by none other than President Bush in the State of the Union.

Our society speaks a great deal about responsibilities, and in America, being a world superpower, many speak about helping the third world quite a bit as well. However, it seems that people rarely practice what they preach, just like many who talk about their objective responsibilities. Ultimately, humans are not required by any law of nature to do anything. They can create their own responsibilities, but can also do things for other people because they want to, or because others want them to, without locking themselves into objectivity.


Works Cited:


Golding, William. Lord of the Flies

New York. Penguin, 2003


"President Delivers State of the Union Address." President Delivers State of the Union Address. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.


Comments (3)

Thomas Wallison (Student 2018)
Thomas Wallison
  1. This is a really insightful comparison. It relates to the natural selfishness almost everyone has, and it actually could change the view of someone after they read it. (less trustworthy of favors, for example)
  2. "Despite our social biology, the very nature of our existence leads us only to pursue things that directly affect us in positive ways. Though we live in an illusion of empathy and selflessness, there is no such thing as a truly selfless action."
  3. Gave me goosebumps the first time I read it. It just sounds really nice.
Zoe Chernowski (Student 2018)
Zoe Chernowski
  1. I agree with your comparison at a certain level, at first reading it I was skeptical, but hearing your arguments really convinced me on certain aspects.
  2. "However, it seems that people rarely practice what they preach, just like many who talk about their objective responsibilities."
  3. I liked this because it really proves your point.
Christopher Irwin-Diehl (Student 2018)
Christopher Irwin-Diehl
  1. I would definitely agree with this thesis, to an extent. There are really no laws of nature, just laws of physics. Things that limit what is possible, not what is moral. I would also agree that many times, self-centered actions can be (and are) twisted into sounding like something selfless, but I also think that selfless acts can just as easily be framed as selfish ones.
  2. Ultimately, humans are not required by any law of nature to do anything.
  3. I think that this sentence is well written, because it proposes the idea without being too pushy, but is also written in such a way that it's hard to disprove, especially after reading the supportive information.