Mc cormick -_violent_video_games

“Is it Wrong to Play Violent Video Games?”

Matt McCormick

Ethical Theories

• McCormick covers potential arguments based on all three theories--

1. Utilitarianism

2. Deontology

3. Virtue Ethics

The Argument: premises

1. It’s hard to believe there’s no effect.

2. Games and school shootings are often in the news together and representation as linked.

The Argument: premises

3. TV Violence desensitizes

4. Video games are active, not passive with violence.

• You aren’t just watched someone being killed, you are pulling the trigger.

The argument: conclusion

“Common sense indicates that playing such games makes committing real violence easier, however slightly ….

Playing violent games of this sort must have a negative effect on his or her moral character.”

Distinctions

Threefold distinction in how violent video games may affect us--

1. Dangerous – directly increases risk of harm

2. Harmful – inflicts harm

3. Risk increasing – Makes other two more likely

The Other side

1. Merely playing ok – it’s fake.

2. The argument would make acting in movies immoral

• You are still simulating the violence.

• People are reluctant to believe this.

Utilitarian analysis

The question:

Are video games risk-increasing?

Needs to prove

1. People more likely to harm others as result of playing

2. This outweighs benefits of games

But:

• The research isn’t that strong

• We routinely accept worse risks

• Weigh vs. benefits:

• Fun for millions

• New technologies

• Side note: There’s also evidence that many games have positive cognitive benefits.

Summary:

It’s going to be very hard to prove the risks are worse than the benefits compared to other activities we say are ok.

Deontological analysis

Means/ends:

• Committing violence against someone reduces them to a means

• Explains intuition about bad sportsmanship

• So are multiuser games especially bad?

• You are playing against an actual person rather than an automated opponent.

• Disinhibition online (racist, homophobic, etc.)

Means/ends:

So are multiuser games especially bad?

• Disinhibition online (racist, homophobic, etc.)

• But: we often make sport of doing harm

Indirect Duties

Kant says:

• Animal cruelty bad

• Increases the likelihood of mistreating people

• Butchers and doctors shouldn’t be jurors –

• They are desensitized.

Indirect Duties: answer

• Joystick not a knife

• Players often respect each other

Still a problem--Example: Star Trek Holodeck is a more advanced video game– a

simulated experience only much more realistic.

Would Pedophilia on the Star Trek Holodeck seem wrong?

Utilitarianism– an act cannot be wrong only the consequences (no real victims)

Kantianism – cannot complain about the disrespect of actual persons (only possibly that it could increase risk of the

behavior in real life)

Aristotelian analysis

The argument

1. You are working to achieve Eudaimonia.

2. You need habituation and training to do the right thing.

3. Violent games cultivate the wrong sort of character.

The Holodeck Problem

• Being a holo-murderer or holo-pedophile is still reinforcing virtueless habits.

• Not wrong because it will increase the risk of the act or have a bad result

• It is wrong because it erodes character and distances you from the goal of achieving eudiamonia.

• Should the goal of good character also be to make us treat others better?

McCormick’s conclusion

Negative Thesis--

• If violent games bad, it’s not because they lead us to harm others.

• Our intuitions are confused.

Positive Thesis--

• It may have a negative effect on character.

McCormick admits that there are limitations with applying classical ethical theories to new technologies.