Author Matt Ridley explores the evolution of our emotions in his chapter Theories of Moral Sentiments. We learn how reciprocal altruism could have evolved in a species such as our own. He would call Alex a short sighted fool who does not consider the long term when making decisions. This relates to A Clockwork Orange in that Alex does indeed receive reciprocity, albeit negative, for his actions once he gets out of jail. The author argues that altruism evolved only to benefit the individual through establishing trust with others. Indeed, when Alex fails to treat his droogs altruistically he loses their trust, leading to his demise. Ridley argues that morality is an innate capacity for guilt and empathy but does not always develop in a person due to environmental factors. Clearly, Alex, and hardly any other character, does not possess these emotions due to the mechanized society he developed in. Kubrick depicts a future so daunting that it can wipe the humanity right out of us. Psychopaths, like Alex, are becoming commonplace. Ridley argues that altruism is ultimately selfish, citing different activities that most people do with the expectation of recognition and reward. He points out that Christians are taught to be good in order to get into heaven. Post-treatment Alex, a “true Christian”, could be argues to be better than a regular Christian. If he were free to be good, he would be ultimately doing so out of selfishness: to get into heaven. This is an interesting twist on the argument of removing humanity through mechanizing people. Humanity is selfish; automatons are not. Also, prior to treatment, Alex was not altruistic, and therefore not ultimately selfish in his actions.

Yvonne Ng demonstrates A Clockwork Orange’s controversial history by listing some of its worst criticisms and best rewards. She argues that the film is as relevant today as it was in 1972. She describes the culture of the society in the film as plausible and real. She divides the film into three parts (thesis, antithesis and synthesis): Alex and his droogs enjoying their daily ultra-violence, conditioned Alex receiving retribution from those he tortured, and finally Alex receiving money and help from the government as long as he presents them in a good light.
Ng writes about the state taking away a man’s choice as brainwashing. A state or a church might want “good” citizens as opposed to freedom to choose. This takes away humanity. Ng also points out that everyone in the film is involved in violence and has justifications for it. She commends the director for balancing opposing forces throughout the film, such as freedom with imprisonment, etc. She lauds him for creating in the viewer a belief that the government is at least equally as evil as Alex. Kubrick does this with the inhumane experiment. She compares Alex’s treatment to a similar treatment in the movie A Short Film about Killing.
Ng explains some of the language used by the youngsters in the film, called Nadsat. This language is used to distinguish the young from the adults. She also writes about his filming techniques and what they emphasize. We learn of the meaning of the empty theatre where rape takes place which is also represented by pseudo-art and meaningless culture: the society is spiritually empty. However, Alex, who still appreciates Beethoven is also capable of ultra-violence. Passions are rooted in human nature. She argues that the film is still relevant concerning generation conflict, sources of violence, corruption, and institutional base of power.

Susan Carruthers begins by comparing works that take place in a future year (George Orwell’s 1984, Kubrick’s 2001 and A Clockwork Orange). She then writes about Anthony Burgess’s novel and how it was inspired: four young men gang-raped his wife. She then summarizes the film, pointing out its inconsistencies with the book. She points out that American critics hated it while the British were more favorable. Tabloids created a self-fulfilling prophecy when they predicted copycat crimes, which indeed occurred. So, here, art imitated life (Burgess’ wife’s rape) and later life imitated art. Kubrick believed that film could have no effect on people’s decisions, although the movie makes the opposite point. Carruthers says it is hard to prove causation between on-screen violence and off-screen crime. Initially, Kubrick insisted his name was on the title, but then handed the title over to Burgess, who didn’t like the film anyway and later made a play that mocked Kubrick. Kubrick pulled the movie from theatres, believing his film caused copycat crimes and tired of criticism. It would not appear in England until after his death. Carruthers says that British censors, upon receiving the film for the second time, were more lax with the rape scenes than they would be with today’s films. Kubrick did edit the film for the MPAA to get an R rating, but not for England’s BBFC. However, upon re-release, critics ignored it and so did copycatters.

             Michael Stein confronts his fear of violence censorship by comparing and justifying violence in a number of films. He suggests that post-Vietnam films contain a different type of American violence. It was no longer the American hero’s violence but a taboo violence viewed as a disease. The films all had a paradoxical theme involving protagonists who use violence to regain their own and other’s humanity. Filmmakers used this paradox to grab the audience with violence and force them to confront it.
            Stein summarizes and analyzes the violence of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, Terrence Mallick’s Badlands, and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. In an interesting way, he justifies Alex’s violence: “with violence comes passion and with that passion comes our ability to choose what we love, what we dare, who we want to be—our humanity.” He points out that Alex, played by Malcolm McDowell, is elfin and childlike, causing us to enjoy what he enjoys. Kubrick causes us to sympathize with this violent character. We want him to get out of jail and go through the treatment which eventually makes him a “clockwork orange.” Kubrick emphasizes that violence and free choice go hand in hand. It’s like burning the flag and democracy. The film forces you to acknowledge that violence is a part of human nature.
            With Badlands Stein argues that American violence is often a twisted version of success. The character Kit, roaming through the wilderness, feels he must kill people in order to survive. He also learns of his fame, possibly equating it with success. The audience is able to digest the violence and like the characters because of their romantic struggle. They are trying to be more human by killing people.
            Blade Runner’s violence is also justified by characters fighting for their humanity. Deckard is the robot because he has no choice of being a replicant hunter. Through violence, Deckard is able to regain his humanity by rediscovering feeling, mostly love pain, and fear. Stein also considers Robocop, Terminator, and Lethal Weapon's use of violence relative to individuals and the state.

In this article Walter Evans argues that Stanley Kubrick’s thesis in A Clockwork Orange is the exact opposite of what moralist writers have said about it. He also discusses the film’s implications on free will while calling for reformation of society’s institutions. The writer makes a number of impressive points that help one understand the film better. First he quotes Pauline Kael, a writer for The New Yorker, who blames Kubrick and other moviemakers for creating a “new mood” for society. She states movies do not mirror reality as filmmakers claim. They desensitize us to violence and incorrectly shape our view of the world. However, the writer of the article impressively argues the opposite. Alex lives in a more violent future that Kubrick blames on failures of social institutions, not on movies shaping a “new mood.” He points out that movies are largely absent in the film. Family, school, the police, and the government are all weak in this film and can be attributed as the cause of a violent world. He points out each of these institutions failures while exonerating film. Then he goes even further by showing that film is indeed the savior of society through its use in the Ludovico technique whereby Alex is conditioned to avoid violent behavior through film and drugs. While moralists such as Kael claim that movies are negatively affecting our culture, Kubrick shows that only through extreme circumstances (forced, repeated viewing and drug effects) can movies affect our behavior. Even if normal viewing of films could modify our behavior, it would be wrong to censor it. That takes away our ability to choose. The writer also points out that art and religion would be pointless without violence and sex. The lessons of the Bible could not be taught without violence. To take away violence and sex from humans is dehumanizing.

The writer points out differences in the book and the movie. Burgess blames the scientific community for Alex’s transformation whereas Kubrick represents it as a political move. Kubrick also makes the prison Chaplain more pious, making the character more believable when he argues about an individual’s ability to choose good over evil.

Kael criticizes Kubrick for causing viewers to root for the brutal Alex. The writer, again, shows that things are not as they appear to be. We are not happy that Alex returns to violence in the end; we are pleased because he can choose evil or good.