Moral in videogames

[Not-here-anymore]

This problem gave me pause. But then I realized it is not a conflict that is not allowed but quite common because we are talking about consensus. There will be contradicting viewpoints.

And thus morality is not objective. If different people within the same society can hold conflicting viewpoints as to what is and isn't moral... well, that's the definition of subjectivity
I think what I have problems with is your idea of consensus. From your previous posts, it seems that because everyone has agreed on something they will keep on agreeing with it; it becomes inalienable fact, and those introduced to the consensus will agree with it because it is. I take the rather more cynical view that the one with the greatest willpower/loudest voice/biggest stick makes the rules. The consensus is that their ideas are right; theirs is the new morality.

If you believe because it is good it should be the law we have another conlusion.

Quite the opposite - I believe that because it is the law it should be good. I don't mean effective, I mean it should be bound to be always on the positive side of ethics. However, I fear I lack the knowledge on the subject to make arguing further on that line profitable or entertaining for either of us.

Much as I hate to use a video game example in a thread debating the morality of actions in games, Bioshock. The willpower of one man alone is enough to overwrite years of societal conditioning in the creation of a new society. To give a real life example of the same thing (and prove Godwin's law in the process), Nazi Germany. The individual's beliefs can subjugate the community's at times, showing a certain subjectivity, surely?

I hate you. I hate you so much now. There was no new society in Nazi Germany. It was the same as the Weimar Republic. It has been presented as a one man show but behind the scenes was a whole system supported by a dedicated group to the task to mobilize the people.

Aside from the hating me bit, I quite agree. I'm well aware that it took more than one man to run the system. But the oratorical skills of one man were enough to rile the public into support of a regime that advocated aggressive expansion; a small group were able to overcome the desire for peace and rebuilding amongst the people and instead whipped up a combination of revenge and a 'might is right' policy.

Again the protectionism. I encounter it too often in this kind of argument. You jump to conclusions. You think of the most extreme case we can reasonably imagine and act as if it is some kind of factual prediction anyone makes once he point out games do desensisize. The concern is not people going on a killing spree because they play videogames but people getting problems. That is they find it harder to care, socialise and emphasise with other people. That is furthermore they tend to retort to aggressive behaviour faster. Aggressive behaviour is to shout and be enraged or to punch someone. Only the most extreme extent of aggressive behaviour is killing someone.
I am not jumping on any "violent games make violent people" bandwagon. It can happen but I suspect "violent games make people insular" is more often the case... That is if we exclude the internet as a way to connect to people, assume the internet not being as good as real life connections, and now I point at another field of studies that is also yet not well researched. Er well, the point is videogames do desensisize people that is a fact that cannot be reasonably argued, this should raise concern not because it means people playing videogames go on a killing spree, but because it could cause problems for the people playing videogames themselves.

My apologies, I misinterpreted what you meant by apathy. I assumed that you meant one became desensitised over time to the actions performed in game, and extrapolated from there.
What you're describing sounds remarkably similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and/or depression. On the depression side, I've earned some small right to comment, and, thinking about it, I'd almost agree. But not strictly with regards to violent videogames. Whilst playing games, or engaging with any kind of interactive media, there is a clear, easily achievable goal, with a definite and known reward. Motivation towards such a goal is thus simple. However, in real life, goals are harder to quantify, and the rewards less obvious. It's only natural to come to expect all goals to be achievable in 5-10 minutes after the frequent payoffs of completed levels, won games, and stat increases in the virtual world. Why sit through months of real-time for less obvious bonuses?
Hmm. I guess I'm forming the start of an argument that suggests content of a game is unimportant compared to the unrealistic yet preferable rewards systems in place, and a subsequent mental divorce from the struggle of real life. Sometimes I hate thinking.

With films and books it is no different. The characters in a book have no free will thus are not the responsible for their actions. The one with the free will and only possible instructor of the acitons is thus the author of the book. Are we willing to say books and videogames are to be considered the same? Does that not mean we should impose the same restrictions on books as we do on videogames and vice versa? That is the problem of agency. Who is responsible for the actions?

To impose any form of restrictions in that case... To place the author/director in the same seat as the player (which, as the agent, seems reasonable), and impose the same rules, one would have to stop them not only from writing or causing certain events, but from thinking them in the first place.
To go right back to your original post, killing in a video game is only killing if you first ascribe life to the now absent package of pixels. You have then killed a character that (at least partially) existed in your imagination. To consider the demise of a character you write about is no different. If you imbue a concept with enough life for it to be able to die, you have killed it regardless of whether you do so by pulling the right trigger on a controller or pushing it off a cliff in your mind. But, importantly, you are the one who has brought it to life first.
Hmm. I like this idea of agency; it has interesting consequences. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

So... killing in games is wrong because the NPCs are people? Is shooting a practice dummy at the police academy also a one-way ticket to jail? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a wanted murderer? Why is it bad to kill something in a game that, at the end of the day, is just an artist's character design that says a voice actor's job reading a writer's lines in a programmer's world?

Yeah, sometimes it can get more complicated and the components will add up to more than their sum, like in Half-Life or Mass Effect, but they aren't alive. They aren't capable of thought, action beyond their programming, or anything.

Also, I seem to remember reading you asking, "Where do we draw the line between 'real' and 'game?'" That is a very easy question to answer. Games involve controllers, keyboards, and unfortunately hands-free motion sensing peripherals. If you aren't using anything like that, it is real.

Go ahead. Point out the obvious flaws in my logic that a simple man-animal like myself is simply unable to see. But, I would LOVE to know your rationalization for playing violent video games yourself. You said you did. Do you just lie down and die whenever the game expects you to play it?

 

[Stammer]

Why do you kill in videogames if you know thou shall not kill? Is there no such thing as moral behaviour while acting in a virtual world? Please submit your explainations, justifications and reasons. Thanks in advance.

Video games are a way to relax and blow off some steam. In a world where so much as looking at a person funny can get you sent to jail for life people need different ways to vent. And when you can sit back and kill things in a virtual world it makes you not want to commit such acts in a realistic setting.

Plus, because the way video games work, most killing ends up happening in self-defense. You can't just talk to your computer screen and tell your enemies to stop shooting at you. The only way to make them stop is to shoot them yourself. And in games like Fallout or Mass Effect where some situations can be rectified with diplomacy I do actually feel bad for all the people I kill, even if they are just virtual.

 

[Raso719]

Consider this.

By acting out these actions in a virtual world one can better understand the gravity of those actions. By playing games that put you in situations where you have to choose survival via violence or willingly die you can gain an appreciation for those ideals.

I've tried many times to play Fall Out New Vegas with out killing humans or super mutants and it's hard. You can't do many missions, you can't enter many buildings to salvage items and eventually you wind up dead. While not a perfect survival simulator it gives you a good idea of what it's like. It can also make you ask some hard questions. Suicide is supposed to be a sin and so is murder but if you refuse to defend yourself is that suicide? If you can save 1000 lives by killing one person is that right to let him live even if it means those 1000 people die? While to many these aren't very hard questions to some people, especially very spiritual and morally sensitive people, they have conflicting morals.

Also consider this. Is shooting a dummy target at a firing range shaped like a person evil? What about shooting what that doesn't look like a human? What about one that looks like Hitler? What about a normal round target with a bulls eye painted on it? What's the difference between shooting a dummy target shaped like a person and a virtual person?

I don't think there are any rights answers to these questions but it's still important we ask them.

 

[WaysideMaze]

The OP in this topic is just fucking hilarious! Like a hyper troll on steroids!

'Why do you kill the sprites!! It's evil!!! EVILLLLLL!!'

 

[jjjonesy27]

If the companies didn't want you to kill the NPC, then why would they give you the option? Killing in games is perfectly fine, as long as you don't kill in real life. If you have to cry to God after blowing up Megaton, then maybe you shouldn't play games in the first place.

inb4 christfag shitstorm

 

[Biodeamon]

well, mostly because i'm an oppurtunistic monster and in a world were i will suffer no pyschical consequences it's just amplified. but i have morals of my own: i won't kill them if they beg and i won't kill for shits and giggles. i will only kill somebody if there's gain.

And to prove my morals i actually have gone through most of alpha protocol using mostly non-lethal methods (511 non-lethal incapacitations, 126 fatalities), and i maxed out my speech skill in fallout before my guns skill.

Also the whole thou shall not kill line makes me sick. i almsot pity people still stuck behind the surpstitous words on the bible.

furthermore it's usually kill or be killed in most games.

And this question also goes for real life , no?why do soldiers kill when they know "thou shall not kill"?

 

[Jachwe]

And thus morality is not objective. If different people within the same society can hold conflicting viewpoints as to what is and isn't moral... well, that's the definition of subjectivity

Is it the barrier of language? Objectivity is if anyone can acknowledge it. Subjectivity is if it is only entiteled to an individual. That is epistemology or ontology on when we can say something is objective or subjective and how we know it. That is if only yourself can identify somehting it is subjective. Like your pure thoughts. No one but you may tell what you are thinking. But then there is neurobiology that challenges this sentiment. If you and anyone can identify something it is objective. Like a table in a room. We can go so far as to say reality is nothing but consensus or that reality only is established because of our conscisnous but that is like I said ontology. What is and isn´t, how it is or why it isn´t is an interesting topic that must be discussed when talking about videogames. For it is I feel a hot topic in the discussion if videogame characters are or are not. And if they are how they are. I might be disussing that another time.

I think what I have problems with is your idea of consensus. From your previous posts, it seems that because everyone has agreed on something they will keep on agreeing with it; it becomes inalienable fact, and those introduced to the consensus will agree with it because it is.

They will keep on agreeing with it as long as they believe it is right. Once new knowledge or problems arise we have to reconsider our position taken and if necessary come up with appropiate answers. Consensus implies disagreement. That is groups and society organize themselves and work as a unit but sometimes the right arm does not know what the left is doing. Consensus means agreement. that is you will act accordingly to the consensus and if you do not do so you will bear the negative consequences. That is how to explain the friction between law and morality which are both based on consensus but sometimes contradict each other.
On a sidenote it is also possible to go the other way around. Your morality demands action but the law forbids it and you obey the law.

If you believe because it is good it should be the law we have another conlusion.

Quite the opposite - I believe that because it is the law it should be good. I don't mean effective, I mean it should be bound to be always on the positive side of ethics. However, I fear I lack the knowledge on the subject to make arguing further on that line profitable or entertaining for either of us.

"Because it is descreptive it is normative" is the sentiment that somehting is and should be.
"Because it is normative it should be descriptive" is the sentiment that something should be but is not.
"Because it is descreptive it should be noramtive" is the sentiment that something is and should be but is not.
Kind of contradicting. Have I done somehting wrong? I am fairly sure you cannot interchange noramtive and desciptive arguments around in a sentence containing "because" which is why I have not included that combination in my argument.

Whilst playing games, or engaging with any kind of interactive media, there is a clear, easily achievable goal, with a definite and known reward. Motivation towards such a goal is thus simple. However, in real life, goals are harder to quantify, and the rewards less obvious. It's only natural to come to expect all goals to be achievable in 5-10 minutes after the frequent payoffs of completed levels, won games, and stat increases in the virtual world. Why sit through months of real-time for less obvious bonuses?

Interestingly real life rewards work the same. If you want to know more watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=channel_video_title

Hmm. I like this idea of agency; it has interesting consequences. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

The problem of agency was also my initial problem to adress. From there it just piles on. Because I have the responsibility of the actions how do I avoid it being moraly wrong by killing in a videogame? Am I killing in a videogame? How can I say I am not killing in a videogame? Are characters living beings? Are they even real? And so on...

 

[Delsana]

It's an escape, is probably the best way to say it.

 

[Shymer]

Why do you kill in videogames if you know thou shall not kill? Is there no such thing as moral behaviour while acting in a virtual world? Please submit your explainations, justifications and reasons. Thanks in advance.

My simple understanding is that I am not killing anything when I am playing a game. I am motivated to master a challenge of dexterity (hand-eye coordination) or intellect (tactical/strategic planning). This is not about morality - it is about a feeling of achievement (winning and being right, being recognised for my skills and having control).

There is moral behaviour 'in a virtual world' because it should inform how we treat other players in a multi-player environment. Morality also comes into play when it comes to the developers choice to portray certain acts in certain ways.

Christian teachings about sins of thought are complicated, but in essence it seems to boil down to the fact that morality is about what's in the heart, not in outward behaviour. Playing games is a behaviour that does not, by and large, lead to evil behaviour. Evil in your heart will more readily lead to evil behaviour.

So playing apparently violent computer games does not make me less moral. However if I harbour evil thoughts in my heart, I may well seek satisfaction in violent computer games.

In summary - you cannot tell, by the games someone plays, whether they are moral. By extension, you cannot control someone's moral decisions by controlling what games they play.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

And thus morality is not objective. If different people within the same society can hold conflicting viewpoints as to what is and isn't moral... well, that's the definition of subjectivity

Is it the barrier of language? Objectivity is if anyone can acknowledge it. Subjectivity is if it is only entiteled to an individual. That is epistemology or ontology on when we can say something is objective or subjective and how we know it. That is if only yourself can identify somehting it is subjective. Like your pure thoughts. No one but you may tell what you are thinking. But then there is neurobiology that challenges this sentiment. If you and anyone can identify something it is objective. Like a table in a room.

Objective items are fact, subjective items are opinion. By arguing an objective morality, to me, you are suggesting that everyone's moral code is identical; that what is and isn't good is a universal constant, and not the opinion of the person carrying out the action. So perhaps it is a question of language/semantics.

I think what I have problems with is your idea of consensus. From your previous posts, it seems that because everyone has agreed on something they will keep on agreeing with it; it becomes inalienable fact, and those introduced to the consensus will agree with it because it is.

They will keep on agreeing with it as long as they believe it is right.

They will keep on agreeing as long as they believe it isn't too wrong. People are easily capable of committing acts they consider wrong, or evil, as long as someone else has told them to do so. This, perhaps, is a problem of agency in real life - people are as easily controllable as game characters, under certain circumstances.

If you believe because it is good it should be the law we have another conlusion.

Quite the opposite - I believe that because it is the law it should be good. I don't mean effective, I mean it should be bound to be always on the positive side of ethics. However, I fear I lack the knowledge on the subject to make arguing further on that line profitable or entertaining for either of us.

"Because it is descreptive it is normative" is the sentiment that somehting is and should be.
"Because it is normative it should be descriptive" is the sentiment that something should be but is not.
"Because it is descreptive it should be noramtive" is the sentiment that something is and should be but is not.
Kind of contradicting. Have I done somehting wrong? I am fairly sure you cannot interchange noramtive and desciptive arguments around in a sentence containing "because" which is why I have not included that combination in my argument.

If I understand what you're saying correctly...
I don't mean to say that the law (normative?) isn't good (descriptive?), merely that it should strive to be so. I appreciate the implication in my last post may have been that it doesn't fulfil that role; perhaps I phrased it badly. What I meant was that the law shouldn't enforce an entire positive set of morals - not every act of good should become legally mandatory, else good becomes meaningless. However, assuming the necessity of a legal system, the laws that are in place should constantly evolve towards an ethical optimum.

Interestingly real life rewards work the same. If you want to know more watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=channel_video_title

The time scale is the issue. 10 minutes of game - reward! 10 minutes of life - still working towards it...

The problem of agency was also my initial problem to adress. From there it just piles on. Because I have the responsibility of the actions how do I avoid it being moraly wrong by killing in a videogame? Am I killing in a videogame? How can I say I am not killing in a videogame? Are characters living beings? Are they even real? And so on...

For my own curiosity - do you play games which involve violence towards virtual characters? Are you OK with your actions in these worlds?

The issue seems to be as much to do with what constitutes life as what constitutes death.

 

[Jachwe]

Objective items are fact, subjective items are opinion. By arguing an objective morality, to me, you are suggesting that everyone's moral code is identical; that what is and isn't good is a universal constant, and not the opinion of the person carrying out the action. So perhaps it is a question of language/semantics.

Morality is a fact of social conscisnous thus it is objective. It is not exclusivly the fact of an individual´s conscisnous which would be subjective because morality is brought into existece by consensual believe of good. The social conscisnous is brought into existence once people build society and conceptualize themselves being part of it. If you do not want to be part of society you do not have to have a morality because there is no need for it.
There is not one moral code because morality is a process. You might believe that authorian ethics such as practiced in christianity is monumental and unchanging because there is one book and it has not changed for 2000 years. The truth is there were burnings of people deemed evil. Nowadays the church does not approve of such practices anymore. Thus the act of burning evil people now has become obscene. Morality is evolving and developing according to consensus. Its development and branching is dictated by the consensus.
The reason why there is not one moral code is simple. For there to be only one moral code it is necessary that there is only one universal consensus. We can imagine such a universal consensus but as I stated earlier consensus implies disagreement and thus if unity is archived it would eventualy branch out again. That is the reason why there is not only one moral code and the reason why there will never be a definite universal moral code.

They will keep on agreeing as long as they believe it isn't too wrong. People are easily capable of committing acts they consider wrong, or evil, as long as someone else has told them to do so. This, perhaps, is a problem of agency in real life - people are as easily controllable as game characters, under certain circumstances.

You will not do something you deem wrong without justification. Otherwise your action would make no sense. I am talking about sense in a deep way which affects your very self. If your actions which are an expression of your-self do not make sense your-self does not make sense because your-self is the source of your actions. If your-self does not make sense it is the same as not having morality which means going back to the state of nature where there is no such thing as morality and thus no need for an actions to make sense.
That is your actions are to be moraly evaluated. The source of your actions is your-self. If an action is performed by your-self and the action makes no sense you do not act according to social nature. That is of course your actions express a disjunction between you and society because you are not par tof society but in the state of nature.

If I understand what you're saying correctly...
I don't mean to say that the law (normative?) isn't good (descriptive?), merely that it should strive to be so. I appreciate the implication in my last post may have been that it doesn't fulfil that role; perhaps I phrased it badly. What I meant was that the law shouldn't enforce an entire positive set of morals - not every act of good should become legally mandatory, else good becomes meaningless. However, assuming the necessity of a legal system, the laws that are in place should constantly evolve towards an ethical optimum.

Morality is normative because it says how things should be. Laws are descriptive because you can point at them.

For my own curiosity - do you play games which involve violence towards virtual characters? Are you OK with your actions in these worlds?

The issue seems to be as much to do with what constitutes life as what constitutes death.

Yes I do play violent videogames. I am also ok with my actioncs within those games otherwise I could not play them. I will post the rest on the issue later. For now I have to go.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Why do you kill in videogames if you know thou shall not kill? Is there no such thing as moral behaviour while acting in a virtual world? Please submit your explainations, justifications and reasons. Thanks in advance.

Because, under the right circumstances, thou shalt indeed kill. For example, if you had to kill someone in order to prevent a bomb going off in mid-London, would you According to the 10 Commandments, you should not, because it would involve killing. But I would without hesitation.
If you want to compare video games to real life, please do. I kill in Crysis 2 because practically everyone I look at tries to shoot me. I kill in Mass Effect to save the galaxy.

Of course morality is different in a game. Why do you kill and eat plants? They are closer to us than computer code is. Justify the slaughter of countless plants! Game code has no feelings, no intelligence, no emotion. It's a series of 1s and 0s. 010110101010111100100011. Should that sentence have rights? Why not, it's computer code.

 

[Jedamethis]

Because they don't die. They'd have to be alive to die. They don't eat, they don't sleep, they don't think. They're not alive.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Why do you kill in videogames if you know thou shall not kill? Is there no such thing as moral behaviour while acting in a virtual world? Please submit your explainations, justifications and reasons. Thanks in advance.

Cause I've got a lot of anger and violence repressed from day to day frustrations and I figure it's much more legal to take it out on fictional beings that the ones I could actually get in trouble for offing. Oh and besides, I only kill people that piss me of in games.

 

[Togs]

Wow another escapist troll, a rare but often hilarious thing.