In Lord of the Flies, how is the brutality within each individual often more dangerous than evil from an outside source?I really need help with...

In the final chapter, Ralph "argue[s] unconvincingly" with
himself that the hunters will leave him alone or,
perhaps,

make
an outlaw of him.  But, then the fatal unreasoning knowledge came to him
again. 

Too late, Ralph
recognizes the evil that men do is innate, and is quite dangerous because it is so often
not recognized.  For, if Ralph and Piggy were to recognize the innate sadism in Roger
when he picks up the stone--"that token of preposterous time," as Golding writes--and
throws it and others all around little Henry at the water's edge in Chapter Four, they
may have prevented Roger's sadistically gleeful hurling of the pink granite boulder that
takes Piggy's life.  

Similarly, were Ralph capable of
recognizing in Chapter One the threat that Jack's statement "of simple arrogance"--"I
ought to be chief"--suggests, he may have been able to avert the regression of the boys
to even and all the conflicts involving the hunters and his followers, the groups that
formed after this confrontation.  Certainly, Ralph and Piggy would have been more
attentive to the message that Simon attempted to communicate that the Lord of the
Flies provides him in Chapter Eight:  "I'm part of you....I'm the reason why it's no
go?  Why things are what they are?"  Then, perhaps, Simon would not have been bludgeoned
to death, or SamnEric terrorized and Ralph hunted.