the issue of free will and moral choice in a clockwork orang

Post Reply New Topic

yeah u know alex that sadistic charsmatic hoodlum
who indelges in the ills of society rape utrla violence
horever his free will is replenicsed by the state
his actions from then on are purely orestetded
and he can never commit good or evil now because his moral choice has been deprive
what are your thoghts on the eithchal imlacations of this act

i'm not a hoodlum!

My thoughts:

No Free will.

No reason to make a moral judgement about a person actions.

But clearily be it a leaking water pipe , burning building or person commiting non-victimless crimes they all need to be put back in control.

In the case of the movie seems like the treatment was experimental if it would have worked I would be 100% for it but since I doubt it would with current technology. I think the criminal in the movie should have served 10 years to life behide bars.

Free will probably does not exist anyway, the universe seems to largely deterministic. However, for the state to reprogram individuals is NOT innately wrong if it is for the good of the rest of society, the only question comes down to what limits are placed upon such acts. For a horrible prisoner to be reprogrammed if not done so in a way to give a certain individual or group great power is tolerable so long as it is rarely done and only in certain instances. To do this on a massive scale poses a threat to the necessary individuality required for society to innovate though.

I prefer the novel. The novel has a final chapter where Alex begins to realise that the violence he performed is starting to wear on him, and he is thinking about possible fatherhood. He works in a record shop and has his own gang again, until he voluntarily relinquishes it to a gang member who is a bit like Dim.

i think beyond what the state does etc....it's more about Karma isn't it?

i would agree with quatermass, the book is far better. other than the chapter that was missing from the film, the whole story just comes across far better in the written form, and burgess' use of language is fantastic.

as far as the moral implications of the story, apparently anthony burgess' wife was raped and seriously assaulted, and this was in part his motivation for writing it. bearing this in mind, it is interesting to note that the book seems to be coming from a standpoint that is largely against the idea of social control. the book is a serious statement on the issue of social control through propaganda and medical intervention. burgess seems to advocate freedom for the individual rather than forced acceptance of social norms, even if the outcome of this tends towards violence. and here the question arises as to why violent tendencies occur among juveniles. it would seem burgess sees society itself and authoritarian power structures as being somewhat responsible.

are these statements not contradictory? if not morality, what is the fundamental basis of a need for control in terms of the actions of a person?

The same basis as fixing a water pipe that is leaking flooding ones home and wasting water. A person trying to rob, rape and kill you is a water pipe leaking on your home.
Oh I assume fixing a leaking pipe is not a moral but practical thing. If technically its a moral judgement to you thats fine. I see people as machines no different than a water pipe. If a pipe can be fixed ,fix it. If it must be scraped, scrap it.

Essentially you view life from a consequentialist point of view where if something is a nuisance is should be handled as efficiently as possible to achieve the best outcome?

ah, i see your point. that would be a very reductivist point of view. you would see no distinction whatsoever between sentient, self aware creatures, and water pipes? an interesting, but in my opinion deeply flawed, point of view. how then would you explain such things as art and music, for example?

What about them really needs explanation? People make stuff. Nobody denied that. We kill annoying birds too despite(or because of) the fact that they create waste.

well, you kill the birds for the reason that they create waste. therefore you are killing them out of some biological drive or necessity. either because they annoy you, you don't like the waste they create, you want to eat them etc. etc. in fact i'm not sure i can see the point you are getting at. can you explain further?

and also, in reference to your previous post, how would one define whether or not a thing is a nuisance? would that not be at least in some cases, a somewhat subjective judgement?

As the difference between using a broken water pipe on an artificial surface to create notes, and using it on someone's noggin.

[/sarcasm]

I am getting at the idea that human capacity for art says nothing as art is a creation which can be viewed with the same eye as a bird's capability for waste. Ultimately, there is no objective way to say that human beings are morally special, all conclusions on the value of human beings must draw in other aspects such as consequentialist views and such.


To some extent nuisance is subjective, however, we can assume that an unwanted violation of a human being's person can be viewed as wrong within the context of a society and damaging to societal order, so a human being that does such to another human being must be stopped from doing so further.

Sounds right.