Waller, Bruce N. Neglected Psychological Elements of Free Will. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology. Volume 11, Number 2, June 2004: 111-118. This journal article by Bruse Waller offers both insight on the psychological elements behind free will and criticism of contemporary philosophers who, according to Waller, ignore concepts of psychology that are necessary for fully understanding free will. Free will is apparently based on external factors, as well as two factors within the human mind: a locus of control, and a belief in self-efficacy. A locus of control is essentially a belief that one.s choices control the path of one.s life. A belief in self-efficacy is a belief in one.s competency or ability to make good, informed decisions. Waller criticizes existentialists and philosophers, both of whom fail to grasp both the concept of locus of control and self efficacy. Existentialists, Waller says, believe that free will requires a complete locus of control, and absence of self-efficacy. Therefore if individuals want to have free will they must fully believe in their ability to control their lives, but all decisions must be made with complete uncertainty because individuals must not have self efficacy. Philosophers, on the other hand, believe that humans with free will can possess confidence in their self-efficacy, but realize that their lives are controlled by external factors, and thus they must lack a locus of control. Waller is of the belief that both a locus of control and self-efficacy are necessary for a person to have free will and therefore philosophers should study these elements more closely. If a person lacks one element, then he or she will either surrender to external factors or be paralyzed by the uncertainty of his or her decisions. Waller.s article covers one of the main themes within Vivre Sa Vie. Godard explores an individual woman who believes she possesses free will, but who, in reality, is controlled by external factors. Waller brings up an example of such a person: someone who possesses a free will, but is completely lacking control. Waller states that this is an especially cruel scenario and draws a metaphor of a child being given a toy steering wheel and being told it controls a vehicle that is, in reality, completely out of the child.s control.

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.