A Clockwork Orange
I just finished watching A Clockwork Orange. Nothing impressive I must say, though that may be because I read the book before watching the film, and I watched it on my desktop which is a far cry from a cinematic experience. The sex and violence are not extremely visceral too (a major disappointment for me) so I don't know why it's banned in certain countries.
Film or book, visceral or not, A Clockwork Orange brings out the question of whether it is better to be a conditioned good or a natural bad. I strongly support the latter, and I'm sure many people would, though the atrocities Alex and his gang commit in the first part of the book are powerfully revolting, a point that was unfortunately not made any stronger by the visual medium, the film, where it should have. The turning point comes when Alex is being conditioned to be good, a process which I personally found more revolting than the brutal crimes Alex committed, to the extent that I felt relief when Alex regained his old self back in the end.
It's hard to ever come up with a compelling argument for the conditioned good camp. Scientifically it could be proven to come up with the best welfare for society, but free will is a value that could be said to be above all other values. The moment it is taken away from a person you commit a murder which is no less painful than one could inflict with a knife or a gun.
Film or book, visceral or not, A Clockwork Orange brings out the question of whether it is better to be a conditioned good or a natural bad. I strongly support the latter, and I'm sure many people would, though the atrocities Alex and his gang commit in the first part of the book are powerfully revolting, a point that was unfortunately not made any stronger by the visual medium, the film, where it should have. The turning point comes when Alex is being conditioned to be good, a process which I personally found more revolting than the brutal crimes Alex committed, to the extent that I felt relief when Alex regained his old self back in the end.
It's hard to ever come up with a compelling argument for the conditioned good camp. Scientifically it could be proven to come up with the best welfare for society, but free will is a value that could be said to be above all other values. The moment it is taken away from a person you commit a murder which is no less painful than one could inflict with a knife or a gun.
2 Comments:
Hmm...I think this is a controversial dilemma that can never be fully answered.
I think its a matter of perspective. Being born into fortunate circumstances (comfortable, peaceful and stable setting), the freedom to do things will seem critical to life. For the ultra-liberal, a life without freedom is a life not worth living.
On the other hand, if I were a character like Jodie Foster in the Brave One, probably I might view the situation differently. Likewise, the many who lived in less-fortunate circumstances might probably prefer conditioned good to natural bad.
Its hard to weigh the two. Is it better to impose restrictions on someone's free will such that he cannot destroy someone else'? (killing someone is the ultimate infringement of the victim's free will, so how do you compare restricting the killer's violence and the loss of the victim?).
If you treat a government to be a person, is it better it is conditioned good or natural bad? This is the question that has plagued the UN for 62 years, and it doesn't appear to be any closer to be resolved than when we first asked the question thousands of years ago, when we first started living together.
Aquila
Is it better to impose restrictions on someone's free will such that he cannot destroy someone else'? (killing someone is the ultimate infringement of the victim's free will, so how do you compare restricting the killer's violence and the loss of the victim?).
That is exactly what I asked you. Your friend here thinks alike.
Post a Comment
<< Home