Moral in videogames
- Thread starter Jachwe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, I've learned my lesson: don't post when I'm very tired, I'm prone to fucking up. I am an idiot indeed.Jachwe said:
Reason for killing in gane then - 'for the greater good'. Kill one, save many.
Good I am having fun tooBordeauX said:
Well imagine your wife or husband being sick. Your partner will die if you do not provide him/her with a certain medicine. Now luckily there is a doctor who has the needed medicine but will only sell it at such a high prize you cannot afford it. So what do you do? Steal the medicine and rescue the life of your partner? Or abide to law and let him/her die?BordeauX said:
I bevlieve that the concepualization of morality as the consentual believe of good is the way that enables us to talk about morality in a meaningful way. That is it enables us to discuss matters of morality. If morality were absolutely subjective it would not make sense to even talk to one another about the matter of morality. I do not argue morality being an absolute concept that is just there. The conceptualization of morality as the consentual believe of good enables you to the viewpoint of morality being a absolute concept but it also enables us the viewpoint of morality being a concept created by humanity exclusive to humanity or maybe also for animals. This conceptualization does not dismiss religion as a source of morality as well as it does not dismiss reason, feelings, the persecution of happines or intuition as the source of morality.BordeauX said:
You do not "think" of them as living beings but that is weak. You must "know" they are not living otherwise I could twist your logic in perverted ways.BordeauX said:
Well digital characters are not born but created or generated that is true but they still do interact with their respective digital environment. The concept of their "personality" not disappearing is intriguing. Could you please elaborate? What is a personality in a game? If you can answer that question you can also explain why it is not supposed to disappear after the npc´s death.BordeauX said:
Rather dissapointing, but maybe next time if you try harder. It is not like I am unbeatable. I am just having fun discovering your flaws in an argument. Maybe you should try another approach?Richardplex said:
I'd normally take you on your offer - arguing like that is always enjoyable, but I'd start on a premise that is fundamentally wrong. For now, I'll lurk and watch your argument unfold. Perhaps on another thread we will meet again.Jachwe said:
Well atleast its entertainingDirty Hipsters said:
I justify it in most cases as self defense, whereas the person i just killed attacked me first, therefore i am not accountable for his death.
In the cases where i attack first, im usually put in a situation with very limited options, doing it for self preservation, or for the greater good of a 'faction'
I also know the difference of killing someone in a fictional world, where actions have a very limited (if any) effect in the real world.
I also don't even believe im killing "people" because they are fictional characters in a fictional world.
Ok guys. I am no christian I am no poilitician with an agenda. I also do play violent videogames. There is no bias on my part. Because there is no bias on my part I am able to see the problem of your "telling the difference of reality and a viodeogame" which is the bias on your part.kman123 said:
As I said. You think it is intuitive. There are fundemantal flaws in a intuitive morality. You think it intuitive that actions in a game have no maoral value but the same actions in reality have such value attributed to them. I do not think you can explain it that easily because at the most basic level through transcendence of such meaningless conceptualizations of our consciousness demanded by our thinking these actions do not differ from one another because their ccontent is the same and thus must have the same value.
Intuitive morality is not to be used as a theory of ehtics because intuition is vague and not universaly the same from person to person. Not even the same of one and the same person from time to time. You cannot base your moral on such a feeble basis and expect anyone to agree with your reasoning. What you need to do is having a strong basis from which you can argue from. Intuition is not such a basis and thus your perception of the difference of reality and game is flawed.
Getting biblical eep i kill because it's fun simple and some ai are annoying why not kill fake things, instead of going on real life rampages like some crazies.Jachwe said:
No offense but perhaps if you spent a little time on the forums and checked out some of the other threads before making such a blatantly provocative one people wouldn't be so quick to jump to this insinuation.Jachwe said:I am no troll. You are offending me by saying that. So I just reported you.... Like someone reported me for calling someone stupidhazabaza1 said:Also low content post which does not contribute to topic.
If I was going by christian morality I would say that video games are inherently good as they are a way of keeping leviathan or 'the beast within' in check. Every human being has violence in their nature, a video game is a way to ease those urges without hurting anyone (and yes scientifically and spiritually a basic ai is not a person). Violent crime has decreased since video games were invented and although this could be unrelated it is an interesting correlation. The average person does not feel real anger or hate when playing a video game (although 'nerd rage' frustration is common). It's a positive experience and does not carry that 'sin'.
Past philosophers and historians have argued that there will always be war becuase it is the nature of man. I would say wouldn't it be better to channel those urges into a game of COD instead?
You reasoning is false. You take it as a given that videogames do channel violent urges and that no such urges arise from videogames. You dismiss frustration and anger arising of videogames as "nerdrage" but this is not true. You get engaged and agitated while playing a videogame. This agitation can take form in rage and anger. Nerdrage is nothing but pure rage. You are fooling yourself into thinking they are different so you do not have to face the uncomfortable truth that a videogame makes you feel frustration and anger while playing some aggressive scenario in your game.xXxJessicaxXx said:No offense but perhaps if you spent a little time on the forums and checked out some of the other threads before making such a blatantly provocative one people wouldn't be so quick to jump to this insinuation.Jachwe said:I am no troll. You are offending me by saying that. So I just reported you.... Like someone reported me for calling someone stupidhazabaza1 said:
If I was going by christian morality I would say that video games are inherently good as they are a way of keeping leviathan or 'the beast within' in check. Every human being has violence in their nature, a video game is a way to ease those urges without hurting anyone (and yes scientifically and spiritually a basic ai is not a person). Violent crime has decreased since video games were invented and although this could be unrelated it is an interesting correlation. The average person does not feel real anger or hate when playing a video game (although 'nerd rage' frustration is common). It's a positive experience and does not carry that 'sin'.
Past philosophers and historians have argued that there will always be war becuase it is the nature of man. I would say wouldn't it be better to channel those urges into a game of COD instead?
i think games accept that the world in which you are imersed is absolute so saying your not killing something is saying games are a world without consequence.within the game world killing is context sensitive, in HaloCE you kill to defend because you were attacked but if you attack a marine they open fire on you so within that context it was imoral. If someonone attacks me within that context i would defend myself tenacsioucly and its moral. the reason we kill in games is often as simple as the one in reality because we are being attacked. very rare is the game that is primarily offensive and is regarded as good.
Aye - I shall start feeling real fucking bad for every pawn I lose in a game of chess from now on.
I kill, because it's what I'm supposed to do. In games, of course. Not in real life. That would be wrooooooooooong.
I kill, because it's what I'm supposed to do. In games, of course. Not in real life. That would be wrooooooooooong.
Dammit people, I come into this thread expecting a debate into the moral choices and "grey area" storytelling in gameplay and instead I am presented with a debate on whether or not killing binary code is morally acceptable by society, and all the while the guy who mostly touch the deep issue that morals are defined by the context in which they are presented is the same guy who bring up Mass Effect 2.
I live in a strange age.
Also, I suppose I should be the one to state the obvious and say that if you want a study into morality and death in videogames go play Planescape: Torment.
I live in a strange age.
Also, I suppose I should be the one to state the obvious and say that if you want a study into morality and death in videogames go play Planescape: Torment.
You are nitpicking. Someone can feel frustration at a video game but it is not 'real' anger. Afterwards most, if not all, people will recognise that they were being ridiculous and throw there hands up in recognition of that.Jachwe said:You reasoning is false. You take it as a given that videogames do channel violent urges and that no such urges arise from videogames. You dismiss frustration and anger arising of videogames as "nerdrage" but this is not true. You get engaged and agitated while playing a videogame. This agitation can take form in rage and anger. Nerdrage is nothing but pure rage. You are fooling yourself into thinking they are different so you do not have to face the uncomfortable truth that a videogame makes you feel frustration and anger while playing some aggressive scenario in your game.xXxJessicaxXx said:No offense but perhaps if you spent a little time on the forums and checked out some of the other threads before making such a blatantly provocative one people wouldn't be so quick to jump to this insinuation.Jachwe said:I am no troll. You are offending me by saying that. So I just reported you.... Like someone reported me for calling someone stupidhazabaza1 said:
If I was going by christian morality I would say that video games are inherently good as they are a way of keeping leviathan or 'the beast within' in check. Every human being has violence in their nature, a video game is a way to ease those urges without hurting anyone (and yes scientifically and spiritually a basic ai is not a person). Violent crime has decreased since video games were invented and although this could be unrelated it is an interesting correlation. The average person does not feel real anger or hate when playing a video game (although 'nerd rage' frustration is common). It's a positive experience and does not carry that 'sin'.
Past philosophers and historians have argued that there will always be war becuase it is the nature of man. I would say wouldn't it be better to channel those urges into a game of COD instead?
Video games dispel these bad urges and so are beneficial. A wise man recognises he is a fool yes, but I could also say that you are fooling yourself into thinking that there is some dark immorality about video games. It's subjective opinion, although it's interesting you try so hard to see the negative and not the positive isn't it.
I'm back.
This "Personality" is defined by the coding within a game, and does not disappear from the game even if the model carrying out the actions dictated by the code vanishes from the map. As I said, NPCs can brought back as many times as desired, and they will go through the same motions over and over without memory of their so called "death".
I await your answer.
But isn't stealing "wrong", according to morality? And what if you stealing that medicine results in the death of a patient that had the money to buy it but couldn't since you took the last dose?Jachwe said:
Then we really can't discuss morality, seeing as I don't agree to that concept. "Good" and "Evil" are just terms, there are no absolutes in this universe, except perhaps death, and maybe not even that, depending on your personal beliefs.Jachwe said:
That's splitting hairs. Fine, I don't acknowledge them as living beings, is that better?Jachwe said:
What I refer to as "Personality" are the actions and behavior pattern of the NPC, which, now that I think of it, are pretty much one and the same.Jachwe said:
This "Personality" is defined by the coding within a game, and does not disappear from the game even if the model carrying out the actions dictated by the code vanishes from the map. As I said, NPCs can brought back as many times as desired, and they will go through the same motions over and over without memory of their so called "death".
I await your answer.
@Jachwe
Keep up the good work.
OT: Morality in games is irrelevant, it can only possibly matter if it affects a character the player cares about. If there's nobody to judge you, it becomes a matter of "which of these choices benefits me the most".
OT: Morality in games is irrelevant, it can only possibly matter if it affects a character the player cares about. If there's nobody to judge you, it becomes a matter of "which of these choices benefits me the most".
It is real anger. Either you deal with it or you are illusioning yourself. Yes maybe most people will afterwards recognise they were angry about a game but that does not change that they were angry... because of a game. Unless you want to say the cause-effect law is wrong you cannot proof me wrong. Someone is playing a game and getting angry because of it. You cannot say "Oh no, he is angry but not "real angry" because his anger arises from a videogame" because I could argue like that in many ways. "Oh he is angry because he got punched in the face/ was screwed over/ was insulted but that is not "real angry" because it arises from a punch/ a fraud/ being hurt." Well I think we agree these are reasons we get angry about. I can also say by the same logic "He is angry about not doing well in sports/ his ice cream having dropped" Imagine someone get angry about those. You would think someone getting enraged for having his ice cream dropped and start shouting would be stupid. Also he would never have to consider anger managment because it is not real anger. Anger is anger. You can call it nerdrage as long as you recognize that it is still real anger. I mentioned sports before and it being a possible source for frustration... like videogames. If we look closly at the gaming culture we find that a small part, the so called "serious gamers" are very serious about gaming. They get frustrated for not doing well in their game. They are the ones who do electronic sports. They get fucking pissed for losing a game if they feel they should not have for whatever reasons.xXxJessicaxXx said:
You cannot say I am fooling myself into thinking that there is some dark immorality in it because I never said that. I am also not trying to see the negative but the flaws. The flaws you are trying to advocate. If you want to step up for gaming and be serious about it you must be reasonable. That is using reason. Saying anger is not anger is illogical and thus not reasonable. Unless you provide a system encompassing the sources of anger and an ontological theory that it is based on ecplaining why one anger that is felt is real and the other is not you are not convincing anyone reasonable.
If you do not want to be reasonable you must not try to discuss such topics.