My final research paper will be based on the perception of free will and censorship in the society. Free will is afforded to all human beings, but many persons fail to understand that free will without a high moral standard is similar to removing free will from humans. Arguably, free will and censorship are often misunderstood by many persons. The government takes away the free will of persons when they implement censorship on persons, but persons also censor their thoughts and actions when they censor themselves from the truth because of a lack of knowledge that can help to create new ideas or which impact the outcomes of situations based on personal reasons. The reality is that persons make assumptions based on personal experiences and personal believes and this free will does not always effectuate good moral standards. Interestingly, free will does not always allow for an understanding or distinction between personal experiences and the universal truth. Some persons find it hard not to respond to violence with violence and this conflicting emotion stems from the personal knowledge that the law will punish violence and the moral obligation to defend self against deadly experiences. Freewill would suggest that one takes flight from the violence or fight against violence with violence, but the universal truth is that violence against violence does not solve any problem. My research question is : To what extent does the perception of free will and censorship impact the ways in which persons act in accordance with the universal truth?”
My tentative thesis :
Through the contrasting perception of free will and censorship, persons believe that in order to understand the universal truth, one must be able to apply personal experiences when using free will to effectuate changes in their perception of the real world.
While free will and censorship share similar values in the society, acts of free will are shaped by personal experiences and the freedom to understand and act in accordance with the universal truth to lift the moral standards of the society
My first source is Aldous Huxley’s novel, “Brave New World.” The author presents a creative vision of a future society prospering on immense technological advancements. This is darkened by a bleak insight into the way society forfeits its humanity based on its over-dependence on technology. I want to use it to demonstrate the idea that all the other powerful emotions that make every individual unique should not be eliminated even as the price for a putatively stable, and vice versa.
My second source is Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451.” The author addresses the theme of censorship in its representation of a dystopian society in which books are burned and reading is illegal. I want to compare the similarities and differences between Fahrenheit 451 and Clockwork Orange in order to assess the value of censorship in the society. Fahrenheit 451 represents an immensely extreme form of government controlled on its people. I will also argue that Bradbury seems to suggest censorship is constantly at work in its subjects’ minds, or, in other words, individuals become effectively self-censoring through their acceptance of the government’s control over artistic, creative, and potentially subversive matter.
My third resource is John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”. I wish to use his definition for “free will” and relate to the idea of moral responsibility and the possibilities that what we regard as true is manipulated truth.
Works Cited
Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. New York: Ballantine Books, 1953.
Huxley, Aldous, Margaret Atwood, and David Bradshaw. Brave New World. London: Vintage, 2007. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Penguin, 2010. Print.
