November 10 slides

Lecture Topic: Moral Problems - Violent Video Games, Part 1

• Required Readings:

  • Matt McCormick, “Is It Wrong to Play Violent Video Games?”

  • Stephanie Patridge, “Is It Only a Game? The Ethics of Video Gameplay”

• Optional Reading:

  • Christopher Bartel, “Why Video Game Violence Isn’t Innocent”

• Content Warning: Discussion includes cases of sexual assault, rape, and torture within virtual reality contexts.

Violence in Video Games

• Case Study: "No Mercy"

  • Overview: This video game received international backlash due to glorifying violence.

  • Outcome: It was banned in Canada, the UK, and Australia in April 2025 and was ultimately removed from the Steam platform.

  • Design Studio's Statement: The conclusion of their statement addresses the backlash received.

• Example: "Red Dead Redemption 2"

  • Scenario: Players can engage with a suffragette advocating for women's voting rights. The game allows virtual assaults on this character, which players then share on platforms like YouTube with derogatory titles.

• Example: "Grand Theft Auto" Series

  • Criticism: This series is heavily criticized for its portrayal of violence and brutality.

  • Notable Mechanics: Players can simulate torture and regain character health by killing sex workers after sexual encounters.

The Ethics of Violent Video Games

• Moral Theories Overview:

  • Key Questions Addressed by Theories:

  • What attributes make actions morally right or wrong? (Kant, Ross)

  • What constitutes (intrinsically) good or bad actions? (Bentham, Mill)

  • What qualities define someone as morally good or bad? (Aristotle)

• Key Ethical Debate:

  • Can we dismiss the moral implications of violent video games as just games or because no one is physically harmed?

  • If not, where do we identify the moral wrongness associated with violent video games?

Competing Ethical Positions

• Amoralism

  • Definition: Video games are separate from the real world and from ordinary moral considerations.

  • Conclusion: Actions that occur within video games do not influence real-world morality.

  • Key Quote from McCormick (2001, p. 278):

  • “Simulating an act that is morally objectionable is not itself morally objectionable…”

  • Example: Actors portraying morally objectionable characters in plays or films are not doing something morally wrong.

  • Quote from Patridge (2018, p. 420):

  • “Video game characters are not real; we cannot harm them, and so their fictionality suggests a form of amoralism.”

  • Question Raised:

  • Is virtual participation in violence, with no real victims, ever morally objectionable?

• The Fiction Argument (Supporting Amoralism):

  1. Fiction distinguishes itself from reality; there’s no moral wrongdoing in imagining immoral acts.

  2. Video games are classified as works of fiction.

  3. Conclusion: There is nothing genuinely morally objectionable in violent video games that feature immoral content.

• Moralism

  • Definition: Video games do not exist independently of the real world and ordinary moral frameworks.

  • Implication: Players can be morally criticized for their actions within video games.

Utilitarian Perspective on Moralism

• Consequentialism Defined:

  • An act is considered right in specific circumstances if it leads to the best overall consequences compared to all alternatives.

  • An act is wrong if it does not yield the best consequences.

• Utilitarianism Defined:

  • An action is morally right if it leads to the greatest net well-being, with wrongness being the opposite.

  • Claim: Playing violent video games may lead to increased actual violence in real life.

• Definitions of Actions (from a Utilitarian View):

  • Dangerous Actions: Directly increase the risk of harm (to self or others).

  • Harmful Actions: Inflict damage onto individuals (self or others).

  • Risk Increasing Actions: Actions that heighten the likelihood of engaging in dangerous or harmful behavior.

  • Position: “Playing violent video games causes real-world violence” argues that such actions are risk-increasing.

Hurdles for Utilitarian Arguments

1. Establish that violent video games are risk-increasing activities.

2. Demonstrate that the overall likelihood of harm surpasses potential benefits.

Empirical Evidence: The Hot Sauce Paradigm

• Study Design:

  • Participants playing violent games (e.g., "Call of Duty," "Mortal Kombat") compared to a control group playing neutral games (e.g., "LittleBigPlanet").

  • Participants prepare food with adjustable spice levels for someone who dislikes spice.

• Research Types:

  • Cross-sectional Studies: Analyze how often participants experience aggression in relation to violent video game play.

  • Longitudinal Studies: Track changes over time in the same subjects concerning aggression and gaming.

Limitations of the Hot Sauce Paradigm

1. Only assesses short-term effects of gaming.

2. Difficulty ruling out other factors that might lead to aggressive behavior over time.

3. Defining violence within video games remains ambiguous; examples like "Mortal Kombat" and "Grand Theft Auto" contrast with games like "Animal Crossing" or "Just Dance."

Utilitarian Argument Clarification

• A framework assumes Bentham's utilitarianism, where risks are weighed against entertainment value.

• Conclusion: The exchange of risk for entertainment happens (e.g., through sports, extreme activities).

  • This challenges the claim that playing violent video games is solely a risk-increasing activity without evidence.

• Value of Entertainment: The risk associated with playing video games is often perceived against their entertainment value.

  • Example: The video game industry is valued at approximately $60 billion in the US (2024).

Alternative Perspective: Mill's Utilitarianism

• Consideration of Pleasures: Differentiates between qualities of pleasures (lower vs. higher).

• Argument: Violent video games incite lower pleasures that may hinder access to higher pleasures.

• Conclusion: This encourages moderation in gameplay rather than total condemnation of lower pleasures.

Kantian Perspective on Moralism

• Formula of the End in Itself: Act so that humanity, whether in yourself or others, is treated as an end, not merely a means.

• Formula of Universal Law: Act according to maxims that should be universal laws.

• Distinction in Gameplay:

  • Variables concerning single-player vs. multi-player experiences are significant.

  • Reflection on Behavior: Poor behavior in multi-player games (e.g., sportsmanship) can indicate failure to treat other players as ends in themselves.

• Indirect Duties (regarding animals): Kant argues duties to animals are indirect; neglect towards them may lead to neglect towards humans.

• Conjecture: Indifference towards violence in games might foster indifference towards real violence.

Kantian Critique of Moralism

• Critique: Kant allows for some activities with negative aspects (e.g., professions that are inherently harmful).

• Problem 1: Leaves unintuitive moral judgments on various activities, including games and sports.

• Problem 2: Doesn’t fully account for the distinction between virtual actions vs. actions in sports/games.

Hypothetical Scenario: Holodeck Immorality

• Holodeck Concept: A simulated environment where immoral acts are enacted holographically (e.g., rape, murder).

• Intuition Question: Is there an inherent immorality in the simulation, even when no real harm occurs?

  • Concern for Kantians: engages us in violating duties to real people.

  • Ethical inquiry: Is there something intrinsically objectionable about such simulated immorality?

Virtue Ethics Perspective

• Virtue Ethics Defined: Actions are right if they align with what a virtuous individual would do in those circumstances.

• Holodeck Immorality Implications: Engaging in simulated immoral actions can cultivate vices and erode personal virtues, negatively impacting human flourishing (eudaimonia).

Consequentialist vs. Virtue Ethical Concerns

• Utilitarian View: Holodeck violence may increase the likelihood of real harm due to lowered inhibitions and desensitization to suffering.

• Virtue Ethics Emphasis: Focuses on how simulated violence affects an individual’s moral character.

  • Assumption: Engaging in violent video game play is incompatible with developing a virtuous character.

Complex Questions for Ethical Consideration

• Q1: How do storytelling or gameplay design affect moral character?

  • Video games present unique storylines, whether open-world or linear.

• Q2: What virtues and vices are developed through playing various video games?

  • McCormick’s paper presents ambiguity on these moral inquiries.

Summary of McCormick's Argument (p. 286)

• Negative Thesis: If violent video games are morally objectionable, it is not due to harm inflicted on others or broken duties to others.

• Positive Thesis: Harm incurred while playing violent video games is best understood as harm done to one's own moral character.

Bartel's Perspective on Violent Video Games

• Comparison: Video games represent an action, similar to works of fiction or photographs, suggesting one can appreciate fictional violence without a desire for real harm.

• Key Point: Engagement with fictional violence should reflect one’s attitudes toward it, not the mere interaction itself.

Strategic Violence in Video Games

• Purpose of Violence: Players may engage in violent actions for strategic advantages (e.g., winning).

• Distinction: Watching horror violence for entertainment differs fundamentally from wishing for real-life violence.

• Final Note: The evaluation of "fantasizing about violence" must consider these strategic facets.