The Movie
In Oliver Twist, Dickens mixes grim realism with merciless satire to describe the effects of industrialism on 19th-century England and to criticise the harsh new Poor Laws. Oliver, an innocent child, is trapped in a world where his only options seem to be the workhouse, a life of crime symbolised by Fagin’s gang, a prison, or an early grave. From this unpromising industrial/institutional setting, however, a fairy tale also emerges. In the midst of corruption and degradation, the essentially passive Oliver remains pure-hearted; he steers away from evil when those around him give in to it, and in proper fairy-tale fashion, he eventually receives his reward - leaving for a peaceful life in the country, surrounded by kind friends. On the way to this happy ending, Dickens explores the kind of life an outcast, orphan boy could expect to lead in 1830s London
The Philosophy of Kindness and Purity in “Oliver Twist”
Both Charles Dickens’ novel and the 2005 movie Oliver Twist present a clear philosophy on the nature of kindness and purity. The central idea is that innate goodness can exist and persist even in the face of profound corruption and cruelty. Oliver himself embodies this principle. He is not a person who becomes good; he is born good, and his goodness acts as a protective shield against the evil that surrounds him.
Purity as an Innate Quality
The philosophy suggests that being pure-hearted is not a learned trait, but rather an intrinsic quality. This is shown through Oliver, who, despite his traumatic upbringing in the workhouse and his exposure to Fagin’s criminal world, never succumbs to evil. He is essentially passive in his goodness; he doesn’t actively fight for his purity but simply refuses to compromise it. His soul remains untouched by the moral decay around him.
Kindness as a Guiding Light
Kindness in the story is not just a virtue; it is a powerful force that attracts other good people. Oliver’s innate goodness acts like a magnet, drawing in benefactors such as Mr. Brownlow and the Maylie family. The narrative suggests that kindness is a force of providence, a quality that can change one’s fate. When Oliver extends kindness, even in small ways, he receives it back tenfold, ultimately leading him to a safe and happy life. This theme reinforces the idea that an act of kindness can create a ripple effect, leading to positive outcomes for all involved.
NOTENancy, by contrast, redeems herself at the cost of her own life and dies in a prayerful pose. She is one of the few characters in Oliver Twist to display much ambivalence. Her storyline in the novel strongly reflects themes of domestic violence and psychological abuse at the hands of Bill. Although Nancy is a full-fledged criminal, indoctrinated and trained by Fagin since childhood, she retains enough empathy to repent her role in Oliver’s kidnapping, and to take steps to try to atone. As one of Fagin’s victims, corrupted but not yet morally dead, she gives eloquent voice to the horrors of the old man’s little criminal empire. She wants to save Oliver from a similar fate; at the same time, she recoils from the idea of turning traitor, especially to Bill Sikes, whom she loves. When Dickens was later criticised for giving to a “thieving, whoring slut of the streets” such an unaccountable reversal of character, he ascribed her change of heart to “the last fair drop of water at the bottom of a dried-up, weed-choked well”.
Philosophers Aligning with the Oliver Twist’s Philosophy of Kindness
Several philosophers have explored ideas that align with the philosophy of kindness and innate goodness seen in the character of Oliver Twist.
Jean-Jacques RousseauFor those interested in Political Philosophy, the philosopher who most closely aligns with the core philosophy of Oliver Twist is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He argued that humans are born good and are corrupted by society and its institutions. In his view, a person’s natural state is one of innate goodness, compassion, and self-sufficiency. This directly parallels Oliver, whose purity and moral compass remain intact despite the corrupting influence of the workhouse and Fagin’s gang. For Rousseau, social institutions and inequality are the sources of moral decay, a concept that is clearly demonstrated in the oppressive and dehumanizing conditions Oliver faces in London.
Stoic Philosophers
While their reasoning differs from the idea of “innate” goodness, some Stoic philosophers, particularly Marcus Aurelius, emphasized the importance of maintaining one’s own purity and kindness regardless of external circumstances. Aurelius believed that a person has power over their own mind and should not let the “crooks and liars” of the world corrupt their character. He saw kindness and justice as acts of strength and a way to remain true to oneself. This aligns with Oliver’s steadfast refusal to “stoop to the level” of those around him, using his inner goodness as a source of resilience.
Aristotle
Aristotle’s philosophy of virtue ethics also offers a related, though distinct, perspective. He believed that moral goodness is not innate, but is a character trait that must be developed through habit and practice. He argued that by consistently performing virtuous actions, a person becomes a virtuous person. While Oliver’s goodness seems to be a natural state, the other characters who demonstrate kindness, such as Mr. Brownlow, can be seen as examples of individuals who have cultivated virtue over a lifetime. This view suggests that even if we are not “born good” in the way Oliver is, we can train ourselves to be so through our actions.
“Virtue theory reflects the ancient assumption that human have a fixed nature - an essence - and that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature.”
Aristotle’s philosophy of such is primarily found in his most influential work on ethics, the Nicomachean Ethics
Free PDF of Nicomachean Ethics
- Text file version (suitable for Machine Learning training)
English only (Suitable for Machine Learning training)
Virtue Ethics and “Eudaimonia” - Εὐδαιμονία
Aristotle’s philosophy is not about following rules but about cultivating a virtuous character. He argued that the highest goal of human life is eudaimonia, which is often translated as “human flourishing” or living well. A person achieves eudaimonia by developing and practicing moral virtues, such as kindness, generosity, and courage.
The connection to Oliver Twist’s kindness is in the idea that virtue becomes a stable, natural disposition. Aristotle believed that by consistently performing virtuous acts, a person develops an internal state where they will naturally and correctly choose the good. This is similar to Oliver, whose purity and kindness are not a struggle but an intrinsic part of his character. For both, a good person is someone who not only does good things, but takes pleasure in doing them.
Reading Notes of Nicomachean Ethics (In Ancient Greek)
Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας
💰ὁ δὲ χρηματισὴς βίαιός τίς ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ πλοῦτος δῆλον ὃτι οὐ τὸ ζητούμενον ἀγαθόν· χρήσιμον γὰρ καὶ ἂλλου χάριν.
Contrasting Kant’s Philosophy of Morality
While the philosophy of kindness in Oliver Twist is centered on innate goodness and purity of heart. Kant’s moral philosophy is not based on innate feelings or natural inclinations like kindness. Instead, it is a deontological (duty-based) system that emphasizes reason and moral duty. For Kant, the moral worth of an action comes from whether it is done out of a sense of duty, not because it feels good or is motivated by emotion like sympathy or kindness.
Kant would argue that an action is only truly moral if it is guided by a “good will”, which is the resolve to act according to a universal moral law that reason dictates. He believed that acting out of compassion or benevolence, while not wrong, doesn’t have the same moral value as acting out of a sense of duty, because emotions are unreliable and can change.
For Kant, the key is the motivation behind the action. A person who helps others because they feel a sense of duty is, in Kant’s view, acting more morally than a person who helps others simply because it makes them feel happy.
✝️ Christianity in the Middle of Innate Kindness and Reasoned Kindness
In its traditional theological view, Christianity would not fully align with either Kant’s or the Oliver Twist philosophy, but it shares elements with both while holding a distinct position. Its stance is a nuanced middle ground. It recognizes an innate, God-given capacity for goodness (like Oliver Twist), but teaches that this goodness has been damaged by sin. It also emphasizes the importance of reasoned, deliberate moral action (like Kant), but argues that such actions are only possible and truly meaningful through God’s grace and a proper relationship with Him. The core Christian perspective is shaped by two key doctrines: the Imago Dei (image of God) and Original Sin.
The Role of Innate Goodness
Like the philosophy in Oliver Twist, Christianity teaches that humanity was created with an innate capacity for goodness. This is part of being made in the Imago Dei - humans have a fundamental nature that reflects God’s goodness and moral order. This is a crucial point of alignment with the idea that some purity can exist naturally within a person. The Christian tradition holds that every person is born with a conscience, an inner awareness of moral principles. St. Thomas Aquinas called this “synderesis”, a natural inclination to pursue good and avoid evil, which he believed could never be fully extinguished.
However, this is where the Oliver Twist philosophy and Christianity diverge.
The Reality of Moral Corruption
Christianity’s doctrine of Original Sin asserts that humanity’s inherent goodness has been profoundly corrupted by the Fall of Man. As a result, humans are not born purely good, but are instead inclined toward sin. The Bible describes this as a “sinful nature”, meaning that a person’s natural tendency is to fall short of God’s moral standards.
This view makes the character of Oliver Twist, who seems to be untouched by the moral decay around him, an unrealistic ideal in Christian theology. A Christian perspective would argue that even Oliver, without divine grace, would eventually be susceptible to temptation and sin because of his fallen nature. His goodness, therefore, would be seen as a special kind of grace rather than a purely natural state.
The Place of Reasoned Kindness
Christianity also shares some common ground with Kant’s philosophy, particularly in the emphasis on duty and intentionality. Kant’s “good will” aligns with the Christian call to act not just out of emotion, but out of a deliberate commitment to God’s will. Many Christian theologians and philosophers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, have argued that reason is a crucial tool for understanding and applying God’s moral law. They believe that a person can use their reason to determine what is good and then choose to act on that knowledge, a process that goes beyond a mere feeling of compassion.
Libertarianism and Determinism
The two philosophies of kindness Kant’s and the one presented in Oliver Twist - do serve as excellent mirrors for the philosophical concepts of Libertarianism and Determinism.
Oliver Twist’s Kindness as a Mirror of Determinism
The philosophy of kindness in Oliver Twist can be seen as a form of Moral Determinism. Oliver is portrayed as “pure-hearted” from the very beginning. His goodness is an unchangeable, innate quality that is not a result of his choices but is simply who he is. In this sense, his goodness is determined by his nature. He doesn’t struggle to be good; he simply is. The story suggests that his destiny - to escape corruption and find happiness - is almost inevitable precisely because of his determined, inherent nature. The kindness he receives and the good fortune he finds are a result of his goodness, which is a fixed part of his being.
Kant’s Kindness as a Mirror of Libertarianism (Free Will)
In contrast, Kant’s philosophy of kindness is a powerful reflection of Libertarianism, the idea that humans possess free will. For Kant, a truly moral action is not the result of a natural inclination or a pre-determined trait. It is a deliberate choice made by a rational agent. An act of kindness is only morally worthy if it is done out of a sense of duty, which is a conscious decision to follow a universal moral law. The individual is free to choose to do the right thing or not, and the moral value of their action lies in that free choice. Kant would see Oliver’s innate kindness as a beautiful but morally neutral inclination, while the true moral act would be a person’s free decision to be kind, even when they don’t feel like it.