“Which is better, law and rescue, or hunting and breaking things up?” (Golding 208). We are proposed this question by Piggy, the intellect of the bunch, and Golding—the author of The Lord of the Flies—intends for the reader to side with Piggy in law and rescue because, of course, it is the sensible, British thing to do. Even though Piggy does not know why what he knows to be true ‘ought’ to be done , yet he insists that it be done never the less.

Piggy refers back to his original question but puts a little twist on it, he says, “Which is better – to have rules and agree or to hunt and kill?” (208) openly opposing Jacks group of hunter vagabonds. Piggy is also surprised “when I saw Jack I was sure he’d go for the conch. Can’t think why” (161). Well, thats okay if you cant, Piggy, because we can. Piggy thought that Jack would go for the conch because up until then it had been Ralph’s symbol of civil supremacy, and of course why would jack need that since his reign is through power?

The whole of the world would have expected “…that a pack of British boys…would have been able to put up a better show than that…” (234).The naval officer has the same perspective as Piggy did, as in that these seemingly sensible British boys should have been able to build up some kind of system to live by while they diligently tried to attract help by the use of smoke fires. In the end the boy’s hunt for Ralph is what gets them saved since the smoke from the whole forest could be seen for miles. Piggy makes use of reiterating his point a third time to make sure the thick headed hunters understand him, he says,“which is better-to be a pack of painted Indians like you are, or to be sensible like Ralph is?” (208). Piggy’s set of morals ethics are those which are meant to be maintained from the book.

Works Cited

Golding, William. Lord of the flies. New York: Riverhead Books, 1997. Print.