Thread: A Clockwork Orange-esque debate.

Originally Posted by mutton

The argument against free will misses the motivation behind the original question. Let me rephrase it. Assuming you have free will, is it better to have your free will restricted such that you cannot perform bad acts?

Well, that wasn't actually the question. It was "Is it better to have your free will restricted such that you cannot perform bad acts", and my answer was "yes, because free will as a concept seems scientifically unviable and so there's nothing intrinsically bad about restricting that which we perceive as 'free will'." The argument against free will answers the original question.

However, I'll play along with this new question anyway, and answer that, yes, if we have free will, it's better to have it restricted such that evil acts do not occur.

Originally Posted by gwahir

However, I'll play along with this new question anyway, and answer that, yes, if we have free will, it's better to have it restricted such that evil acts do not occur.

This still makes sense within the context of free will thinking, actually, because as long as we decide ourselves to restrict our free will, we retain our free will; it's just expressed in our self imposition of morality in one moment.
If Alex had chosen to be conditioned rather than forced, perhaps Burgess would have had to depict him as a hero.

As for this:

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

Free will and predictability is one and the same to you? Since the universe/powers at be give us the scenarios and options that we must choose from, therefore we aren't truly free? Am I understanding that right? Sorry, this is just such a drastic idea of freewill then what I'm use to hearing about.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that every choice you make, including coming back to this website, looking at this post, making decisions on whether you agree or not, all of that was predetermined. I don't see how I left any leeway for misinterpretation.