Are Violent Video Games Unethical?

[RationalBiker]

His actions in the game can be judged.

What then would you judge of him if he "kills" bytes of information in his game but he is otherwise (for instance) perfectly nice and helpful to you, is thoughtful, productive, rational, etc. etc.?

Speaking for myself, if someone doesn't think much of me because I kill bytes of information in a computer game, I'm not really going to be bothered by that.

[intellectualammo]

What then would you judge of him if he "kills" bytes of information in his game but he is otherwise (for instance) perfectly nice and helpful to you, is thoughtful, productive, rational, etc. etc.?

But he's not killing bytes of information in his game, directly. Rather he is killing a simulated person in a game to get a weapon that he wants. He has a choice to kill/loot or walk on by. His choice can be judged. How can a player just kill someone to get their weapon? I can't imagine actually picking up a controller and doing it myself.

[Inspector]

...I wasn't entirely sure if "violence" as such was considered initiation of force strictly, or also in retribution that it could be applicable. I think that in retaliation, it should not be considered violence, but I could be wrong, it's my take on it.

You were indeed incorrect. "Violence" is synonymous with force - although it could be argued that it refers to a specific level of force (i.e. a minimum roughness), no proper definition of "violence" equates it only with the initiation of force.

The term "violence" is not specific enough to distinguish between ethically justified force and ethically unjustified force. The confusion arises because of pacifists - people who think all force is wrong, even force that defends against the initiation of force. Those are the people who inject the idea that "violence is wrong" and thus implanted your confusion that it must refer only to the initiation of force.

Now, your mistake is understandable, since it is the only way in which the claims of pacifists who abhor "violence" (i.e. violence as such) would make any sense. But that's just the point: their claims do not make any sense.

I hope that helps to clear up that point.

Now, as to your other point - about killing in a video game "just to get their weapon," I can speak from the perspective of someone who has played a lot of games over the years and I will tell you that such a scenario is exceedingly rare. For the most part, the violence you use in video games is self-defense. Games in the last 6-10 years have more and more included the option for the player to initiate force, but the vast majority of such games do not at all require the player to do so in order to advance the plot, etc.

[intellectualammo]

You were indeed incorrect. "Violence" is synonymous with force - although it could be argued that it refers to a specific level of force (i.e. a minimum roughness), no proper definition of "violence" equates it only with the initiation of force.

[snip]

I hope that helps to clear up that point.

Yes, definately. I thank you, and RB for that.

Now, as to your other point - about killing in a video game "just to get their weapon," I can speak from the perspective of someone who has played a lot of games over the years and I will tell you that such a scenario is exceedingly rare. For the most part, the violence you use in video games is self-defense. Games in the last 6-10 years have more and more included the option for the player to initiate force, but the vast majority of such games do not at all require the player to do so in order to advance the plot, etc.

I see, thanks. I can still judge a person on their choice given the "option" of whether to do so or not, or if the game requires it to further the plot, or the use of force other than in self-defense in the game.

[Robert J. Kolker]

But the thing of it is, is that you are wanting to do it either way. It's the why you are wanting to do it, that concerns me. I never act this way anymore, ever since I grew up (which took a while, mind you).

or play video games...

Why are you concerned? If someone wants to do a little fantasy with bits and bytes in private and not doing any objective harm to any other human or actively preparing to do harm*, why are you concerned? Are you threatened in any way? Are you harmed by this private behavior?

If someone dreams of doing violence while asleep, should this be of any rational concern to you (provided the violence remains a matter of dreams)? Or do you believe he who imagines violence will eventually be overtly and actually violent?

What if someone portrays violence and nastiness in a dramatic activity? Does this concern you?

Speaking for myself, as long as no one is doing or threatening any real violence or is not rehearsing violence with the intent of actually doing violence eventually, I am content to ignore it. My inclination is to ignore those things which are of no real danger to me or which scare the horses or keep people awake at night. There is enough real danger in the world to be concerned with.

I also think video games are a waste of (my) time. I would prefer discussing issues of common interest or proving theorems. Which is why I am typing this and not playing some video shoot-em-up.

Bob Kolker

*I distinguish between playing video games and taking flight simulator lessons with the intention of hijacking a plane and crashing it into a tall building. There is superficial similarity, but the intent and goal is quite different.

[Inspector]

I see, thanks. I can still judge a person on their choice given the "option" of whether to do so or not, or if the game requires it to further the plot, or the use of force other than in self-defense in the game.

Of course, but such things are rarely conclusive. You don't know if a person is getting their kicks off fantasizing evil acts, or is just curious as to what will happen in the game, or any number of other explanations. You'd have to look much deeper at what makes them tick.

[Inspector]

As an interesting side note, it was possible to vote for both "yes" and "no," so I did that.

[RationalBiker]

His choice can be judged.

If you want to make that distinction, fine, it's still just computer bytes, no real person is harmed. However, going with your distinction the question still stands, how will you judge him? What will be the practical consequence you will impose on him? Again, assume for the sake of argument he is friendly to you, helpful, rational, productive, etc. etc.

[Mammon]

I voted no, because we are talking about the distinction between real life and fiction.

A good example, I just recently got a new awesome computer capable of playing any game on the market. I wanted to play more games because real life stresses me out and it would be nice to delve into a different world and a different life for a few hours.

One game I got to do this is Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I've played extensively before. My first play through, on a friends computer, was just about going around looking at everything and playing around with the different options. But, this time I decided to make a few different characters, a good guy and a bad guy.

My bad guy is a dark elf, assasin and VAMPIRE! So I basically run around sucking peoples blood, stealing their stuff (for the Theives Guild as well) so I can sell it and finance the building of my vampire lair. The reason I'm playing a bad guy is because I wanted to see what it would be like. I can't be a vampire in real life, I can't be a ruthless assassin in real life, I can't steal everyones stuff in real life. I could, but I realize it would be unethical to do so. (Even in game it's unethical because the guards will arrest you and what not).

Now, how do I justify being a bad guy? It's simple. I really view this as something more like acting out a role. I'm a huge dork and I tend to really get into games when I have time to. I wanted to play the role of the bad guy. The video game provides a way to do that. It's a hell of a lot better then doing it in real life, granted, I wouldn't want to in the first place. But, it's fun to do in a game, just like it is to do it in a movie, or a play, or on a tabletop game or whatever. It's not real life, people are getting hurt and (to me at least) it provides a healthy intellectual experience if you treat it right.

In the event it does spill out into real life, then the game is not to blame for it. It's not the fault of the developers or the other fans that some people don't make the distinction between real life and fiction.

Point Summary: Playing the "bad guy" is like playing a role in a movie, it doesn't have to mean your sanctioning the acts of evil, your just doing it in a fictional setting because it that setting it's harmless.

I could get into the alternatives to violent video games if ya'll want.

[intellectualammo]

I voted no, because we are talking about the distinction between real life and fiction.

I know that in my writing I actually intertwine the two in an interesting way, but yes there is still a distinction regardless.

A good example, I just recently got a new awesome computer capable of playing any game on the market. I wanted to play more games because real life stresses me out and it would be nice to delve into a different world and a different life for a few hours.

You go to be in a different world through video games, I do through my own writing, or reading (which I rarely do anymore).

My bad guy is a dark elf, assasin and VAMPIRE! So I basically run around sucking peoples blood, stealing their stuff (for the Theives Guild as well) so I can sell it and finance the building of my vampire lair. The reason I'm playing a bad guy is because I wanted to see what it would be like. I can't be a vampire in real life, I can't be a ruthless assassin in real life, I can't steal everyones stuff in real life. I could, but I realize it would be unethical to do so. (Even in game it's unethical because the guards will arrest you and what not).

I certainly wouldn't choose that particular character to play in a game, but thank you providing why you are choosing to be one.

Point Summary: Playing the "bad guy" is like playing a role in a movie, it doesn't have to mean your sanctioning the acts of evil, your just doing it in a fictional setting because it that setting it's harmless.

Sometimes a person has to play the bad guy to advance the plot, like in a play/movie, this could happen in a multi-player online game to, I imagine, if you want all the characters to be played by real life gamers.

I just know that I wouldn't play such parts just for fun in a game, there'd have to be more of a purpose to get me to suck people's blood like say in a movie, but I'd have to see that in the game too. I just don't see myself playing the role of a bad guy in a game, it'd have to be computer done, or someone else online in gameland.

[Drew1776]

Appologies if this has been addressed earlier. A game is an object and an object can't be unethical. It's use might be but the game per se is not. The answer to the poll question is a no brainer. Violent video games are no more unethical than guns or paper or chopsticks.

Using the flight simulator example from Robert J. Kolker:

A violent video game is no more unethical than a flight simulator. A terrorist who uses a flight simulator to train to kill people is unethical BUT that does not make the flight simulator unethical. This is the same for violent video games. A nut job who plays violent games so he can train to kill people is unethical BUT that does not make the game in and of itself unethical.

The real question is, "Is it ethical TO PLAY violent video games?" In my opinion the better question is, "Is it ethical to enjoy violent video games." In this case I think context is everything. I wonder if this is even an ethics question or more of a sense of life (or psychological stability issue). In general I don't have a problem with people who play violent video games because I've never seen a game that I thought was just awful and had no redeeming quality at all. However, I have seen movies that I consider wholly malevolent and disgusting and I do wonder about the psychological status of people who enjoy immersing themselves in such malevolent disgusting gore.

In the political arena, as was pointed out before, the government's role is to punish those who infringe on other people’s rights. The ethical determination of violent video games is irrelevant. Playing a video game does not infringe on another's rights period.

[intellectualammo]

A violent video game is no more unethical than a flight simulator. A terrorist who uses a flight simulator to train to kill people is unethical BUT that does not make the flight simulator unethical. This is the same for violent video games. A nut job who plays violent games so he can train to kill people is unethical BUT that does not make the game in and of itself unethical.

I agree, but only if the game isn't like the movies you described:

However, I have seen movies that I consider wholly malevolent and disgusting and I do wonder about the psychological status of people who enjoy immersing themselves in such malevolent disgusting gore.

where instead of watching or viewing, players are the ones doing. This game could be unethical in that case, in my opinion.

[Mammon]

Appologies if this has been addressed earlier. A game is an object and an object can't be unethical. It's use might be but the game per se is not. The answer to the poll question is a no brainer. Violent video games are no more unethical than guns or paper or chopsticks.

Using the flight simulator example from Robert J. Kolker:

A violent video game is no more unethical than a flight simulator. A terrorist who uses a flight simulator to train to kill people is unethical BUT that does not make the flight simulator unethical. This is the same for violent video games. A nut job who plays violent games so he can train to kill people is unethical BUT that does not make the game in and of itself unethical.

The real question is, "Is it ethical TO PLAY violent video games?" In my opinion the better question is, "Is it ethical to enjoy violent video games." In this case I think context is everything. I wonder if this is even an ethics question or more of a sense of life (or psychological stability issue). In general I don't have a problem with people who play violent video games because I've never seen a game that I thought was just awful and had no redeeming quality at all. However, I have seen movies that I consider wholly malevolent and disgusting and I do wonder about the psychological status of people who enjoy immersing themselves in such malevolent disgusting gore.

In the political arena, as was pointed out before, the government's role is to punish those who infringe on other people’s rights. The ethical determination of violent video games is irrelevant. Playing a video game does not infringe on another's rights period.

I agree completely.

This post is made of 100% WIN.

[Tenure]

To follow on from Drew, I think there are more non-violent video games with no redeeming quality, than violent ones. Violent ones usually have some sort of purpose to fulfill at least. Have you ever played Final Fantasy? I know I'll be condemned for hell for saying this, but Final Fantasy is the most mind-numbing game you can ever play, and there's barely any blood in it whatsoever. Ever the combat is stilted and turn-based*.

By the way, I believe this comic is quite pertinent to the issue:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/02

*Note: I like turn-based combat, I'm just saying that to say that it isn't violent, constant fighting, but controlled, measured fighting.