Today I read the book A Clockwork Orange. The ultimate themes running through this book are freewill and whether or not it is ethical to force good upon someone, no matter how psychotic the individual may be. This got me thinking:
What does God want? Does He want goodness, or the choice of it?
Is a man who chooses bad perhaps, in some ways, better than a man who has good imposed upon him?
And of course, is it ethical, aside from my Christian world view, to take away someone's right to choose between right and wrong?
To the first question, I looked to Biblical sources. In Genesis 2:16-17, after God had made man, he gave Adam but one rule. He said "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die." It seems like here is where God establishes mans free will to choose good and bad. He gives them the chance to choose.
However, while I'm a firm believer than we are given free will, I find there are times when God must step in for us because we, as a whole of humanity, are not capable of escaping sin on our own. For example, in Genesis 6:5-7 "When the Lord saw that man's wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Then the Lord said, 'I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky - for I regret that I made them.'"
So on the one hand, God seems to want us to have the choice of goodness, shown by the first example. On the other hand, God seems to want just our goodness, shown by the second example. This second example begets the question, in my mind, how deep are we talking with goodness here? There's good deeds and righteous acts, but there's also the state of the heart. I think that's what He's getting at.
The people of the second example had corrupt hearts with no desire for what was righteous, pure, and holy, much like our character, Alex, from the aforementioned book. Just as God desired our goodness, so too did the State of which Alex was in custody. I think the key to going about seeking that goodness lies in the motivation of the heart. In God's case, His motivation was ultimately love. He was beside Himself with grief over His decayed creation. He knew what would be best in bringing about the ultimate redemption for His Bride. He was looking to the future and had best interests at heart for those past, present, and future. In Alex's situation, Dr. Brodsky admits that he cares not for the boy's reformation and well-being as much as he cares about freeing up prison space and lowering crime rates. The motivation behind his method of seeking goodness from Alex is entirely selfish.
To basically sum up my answer to the first question, I think God wants us to have the choice to choose between good and bad; however, I also think that He will go through great lengths to save us from ourselves out of pure love and mercy. This is subject to change as I ponder it more, but for now, this is where I stand.
To the second question (Is a man who chooses bad perhaps, in some ways, better than a man who has good imposed upon him?), maybe it's not a question of who is better. Is a man defined as good or bad based on their ability to choose? No! They are defined based, not on the ability, but rather the choice itself. Furthermore, another questions needs to be asked: was there a point in which the second man of this question gave consent to having good imposed upon him? I think that's a defining question in and of itself. For example, in the text, Alex is brought up to speed about his selection to be a study for the experimental Ludovico Technique. Afterwards, he is asked to sign waivers, giving his consent to the procedure. In my mind, Alex gave up his future right to choose between right and wrong in that moment. The consequences on the procedure are ultimately what Alex chose to have happen. He chose to have good imposed upon him and even still his motives were deceitful for he was promised release from prison in a fortnight, rather than serve the full 14 years. Aside from choice and back to the question at hand, is one better than the other, perhaps the motive behind the ones imposing good upon another is important. When God imposed good, it was loving; when Dr. Brodsky did it, it was selfishness and the need to be recognized as having done something worthwhile.
Perhaps, though, none of that really even matters. In this day and age, a majority of Westerners abhor the idea of their free will being even remotely sabotaged. From that mindset, I'm almost certain the man who has the choice to choose bad will be seen as the better of the two; however, from my own personal view, I see neither as better than the other and motive to be of equally a valid concern to the question.
To the final question (is it ethical, aside from my Christian world view, to take away someone's right to choose between right and wrong?), let's look at what happened in the book. Alex was a brutal young boy of only 16. He beat, raped, murdered, and stole, among numerous other things, and he felt absolutely nothing but pure joy out of doing so. He didn't care for ethics and morality, he just did whatever he felt like doing to bring him that rush he desired. Typically, as a society, we immensely hinder a person's ability to choose by placing them in prisons when they commit great offenses on society. But there are those, like Alex, who spend that prison sentence simply biding their time until they can be free to choose to do evil once again. It was made very clear that was what Alex wanted, and was even the sole purpose for his choosing to have good imposed on him. With individuals such as that, who are legitimately psychotic at their very core, is it ethical to take away their right to choose between right and wrong? Honestly, apart from my world view, I can't see a reason why not. It would be in the best interest of the greater good and, in extreme cases such as Alex's, it could keep many people from being hurt and tortured. However, still apart from my Christian world view, I would not see it being very ethical to impose goodness upon those who are of no harm to the greater good. That would eventually breed a type of dystopian world, as is portrayed in A Clockwork Orange, which would in turn be horrible for the greater good.
