Morality in Clockwork Orange

Please watch one of the following films carefully. Keep one eye on the ethics portrayed in the film, both by the characters and the filmmaker. Keep the other on the artistic elements of the film. Then consider this: Does the film have a moral vision? Should art be moral?

When approaching the question of whether or not the film "A Clockwork Orange," directed by Stanley Kubrick, has a moral vision, we first have to define what exactly is to be moral. To have a moral vision is to be concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, strongly relating the ethical philosophers we studied, where their goal with their philosophies was to define what exactly is right and wrong behavior, and, in some cases, how to achieve it. Therefore, I will look through some of the lenses such ethical philosophers provided to see if the film has a moral vision, before answering the second question, which relates to art and morality in general.

The central theme in this movie, as uncomfortable and unmoral as it may seem, is exactly what constitutes morality? Betrayal in many cases is seen as an immoral act, just like corruption would be. When discussing about ethics, some extreme cases, such as psychopaths, often occur as counter-arguments to some of these philosophers' reasonings. What if their true happiness is to kill and rape people for no reason than for the sake of violence itself? This is definitely not the case for everyone, but these exceptions make things difficult to make concrete. Alex was living a perfectly happy life, in his eyes, until his friend's betrayed him and he was caught by the police. Is betrayal always immoral? In this case, in the eyes of society, it definitely is not -- if it weren't for the four friends' backstabbing, the police may have not apprehended this killer. 

Another instance of immorality in this movie is when Alex opts for the anti-violence treatment after 2 years in prison. There, the doctors would make him undergo experimental aversion therapy, where they would give him medicine to feel sick, make him watch a film with extreme violence, so later his brain would associate the feeling of sickness to the simple act of watching those images. This brings up a first order question which is "Is moral corruption better than forced morality?" If we had a morality pill would we all take it? And most important, should we? 

Immanuel Kant's "categorical imperative" would state that if we let Alex kill and rape whoever he wants, as soon as the protagonist made those decisions, he agrees that everyone else in the world would. On the other hand, if we delve deeper into what exactly goes on inside Alex's head, what drives him to make these decisions and whether that makes him truly happy, then the categorical imperative would shift to "let people do what makes them happy" instead of "let people kill and rape each other." Although, Alex being the psychopath he is, I don't think he would mind other people killing and raping each other, as was seen in the movie. 

Clearly, this film has many criticisms regarding how people perceive morality, how things are not black and white in life, and how sometimes people act morally, yet still do not achieve Bentham's utilitarianism, regarding other people's happiness, such as is the case of the end of the movie. At first, this film may seem very heavy and extremely violent, but sometimes these brutal aspects of the movie are needed to portray the message of morality that the director attempts at, and to make this film truly a piece of art.

The most controversial pieces of art, especially those of the modern times, challenge something about life, whether it is the government, capitalistic system, or what. And as I mentioned earlier, if art was moral, then the message would not necessarily be transmitted because as we will see later in the art unit, shock is an art factor for beauty (not too much of it, though!). On the other hand, there are several pieces of art that are completely moral, yet have a very controversial message to send to the audience, and the morality is just the camouflage for the piece, whether it is a book, a song, or a play. Now, the camouflaged morality actually becomes beautiful in the public's eyes. 

When judging whether art should be moral, I think it depends on the intention of the creator -- making my argument a very relativistic one. Still, from what I have seen in my time, the more immoral art is, the more beauty people find in it.