Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Thought Experiment 79: A Clockwork Orange

2/6/2017

4 Comments

 
Picture
Should we try to keep our eyes open to this?
Okay my droogs, we've got a pretty uncontroversial thought experiment this week based on a popular book and movie. See what you make of this:

---------------------------------------------------
     The Home Secretary had been told in no uncertain terms that his plan was "politically unacceptable." But just because it was similar to something a well-known novelist had described in a work of dystopic fiction, that was no reason to dismiss it out of hand.
     Like the Ludivico process in Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, the new Crime Aversion Therapy programme took repeat offenders through an unpleasant, though not lengthy, treatment that left them repulsed by the very thought of the types of crime they had committed.
     To the Home Secretary it seemed not so much a win-win situation, as a win-win-win one: the taxpayer won, as treatment was cheaper than prolonged and repeated imprisonment; the criminal won, as life was better outside than inside prison; and society won, because previously troublesome blights on the community were turned into law-abiding citizens.
     And yet the civil liberties brigade bleated on about "brainwashing" and denying the essential liberty and dignity of the individual—even though the programme was entirely voluntary. What, thought the Home Secretary, was there to object to?

Source: A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, 1962.

Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 235.
---------------------------------------------------

As a reminder, we're told by philosophers that the rules for their thought experiments demand that we have to suspend concern about the likelihood of something happening, and that we must consider the events depicted as long as there is even a slim chance that the events in the thought experiment could occur. It seems to me that the development of a scientific treatment that could strongly influence the future behavior of people is at least theoretically possible. But would it be objectionable? Why or why not? What parameters or situations might be required to think about before going ahead with such a plan? I'll be back on Friday to discuss.
4 Comments
John A. Johnson
2/6/2017 08:02:43 pm

As an adolescent I was thoroughly fascinated by A Clockwork Orange. I saw the film multiple times (which required actually going to the theatre again and again because movies were not available on tape or DVD or Internet streaming). I read the book multiple times and my brothers and I adopted nadsat speech. We nicked our father's vermouth to make our version of Moloko plus, and played the vinyl soundtrack from the movie in the evening as we prepared to hit the streets to sir up a little excitement. (We did stop short of ultraviolence.)

Back then it was obviously clear that the Ludivico treatment was wrong because the conditioning process unintentionally caused Alex to feel sick about his one redeeming quality--his appreciation of Beethoven. More generally, when we undertake a process to reform criminals, we can't foresee all of the consequences. If, in the process of making criminals feel sick about violence it is possible that we take away some of their positive humanity (which is what happened in Alex's case), then it is too risky to attempt such mind control.

Today I have a different take on this. Indeed, we cannot foresee all of the consequences of techniques to reform criminals, but what is the alternative? To try nothing at all? Clearly, the criminal justice system is already engaging in practices that it hopes will reform criminals. And even though there is evidence that incarceration causes some undesirable effects (recidivism is actually higher for longer prison sentences for the same crime), should be give up and simply let criminals run loose? If a technique such as Ludivico showed great promise in terms of teaching people to feel revulsion about acts where we should feel revulsion (rape, murder) and it cost far less time and money than the current prison system, why not?

Some may object with arguments about free will, that it is wrong to try to force criminals to feel revulsion at the thought of committing crimes. But are we not denying the will of current criminals by locking them up and trying to reform them? Do we think that imprisonment gives criminals time to engage in discussions of what is rational and right such that they will choose of their own free will to be well-behaved when they are released? Perhaps this is possible in some cases. But I also think that this will not ever work for other cases. That is why today I would not automatically take any options off the table, as badly as I felt for Alex when I was a teenager.

Reply
@EdGibney link
2/7/2017 11:34:23 am

Thanks John! I hope you are enjoying the chance to write these thoughts as much as I enjoy seeing them. I don't want you to feel pressure to write every week, but I really do enjoy reading your thoughts when you share them.

That's amazing you and your brothers talked nadsat. When I went to Ukraine to serve in the Peace Corps and learned the Russian language, I was floored to hear that it was the basis for nadsat. (There were even molochny bars there left over from Soviet Times.) I haven't re-read all of Clockwork since I learned Russian, but I am planning to watch the film again this week.

Reply
Chuck Schneider
2/7/2017 02:47:01 am

Voluntary? I presume the choice(s) was not treatment or capital punishment, or even life imprissonment. Then assuming one choose the voluntary treatment. Would it matter why he chose to do it? Just to avoid punishment and gain freedom, or perhaps it could be that he truly wanted to be a better citizen /human being? Does the reason matter? I'm not sure.
With today,s modern drugs and treatments (hypnotism),it seems we already have such choices. Drugs to stop smoking, drugs to get rid of various addictive habits.
Habitual drunk drivers are often given the choice of "going through an addiction clinic, or "x" many months in jail, and or loss of drivers license."
Is mandatory immunization any different. Ie Your child can not attend public school unless he/ she gets certain immunization shots.
When does the greater good for society out rank our individual right or freedom to be bad for society?
Modern research into brain "development " and the way we are all " socialized" seems to be not much different than these other " treatments" - although "bringing up a child" normally takes years, whereas "behavior modification " usually only takes a short time.

So I'm all for it, since we are already doing it.
For those who say no, would it matter if the treatment could be reversed?

What will society do when the world gets too populated, and society " strongly urges" individuals to limit the number of children by whatever means? Perhaps a whole new industry of selling and buying " sterilization credits" (much like carbon credits) would develop.

Reply
@EdGIbney link
2/7/2017 11:37:11 am

Effectiveness. Voluntariness. Permanence. Utilitarian costs and benefits. ... You raise excellent points that I hope to cover too. Thanks Chuck!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    February 2025
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.