A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games

#1 I really liked this article. He really thought this out. His discussion of why someone can "do" and enjoy immoral acts in a game and at the same time not want to do similar acts in real life makes a lot of sense to me.

I also liked his viewpoint of how people are not always arguing about the morality of video games on the same logical playfield.

He also points out the importance of people getting enjoyment out of games. This was a bit of an eye opener for me. Everyone on both sides of the argument always seem to overlook this point. I never think of it in a logical argument even though it really is the main reason that I play games and arguably is the main purpose of games in general. It seems to me that acknowledging the importance of this openly makes games and gamers seem a lot less deviant because you can see their purpose, otherwise the mind of the observer it's easy to replace their purpose with the actions that are taking place within the game.

#2 I agree this is a well-written article, but I feel his choice of arguements don't apply to the complaints that are being made about the game or others like it.

Before I get started and possibly make you think I'm a avid church goer from Alabama; I'm 19 and have always lived on the West Coast. I'm a self-declared agnostic (means I haven't made up my mind regarding religion), so don't think this is coming from Al Sharpton's cousin.

Why was this not taken with the approach of exploring morality for children? Since when have people been complaining about the "moral health" of adults? Aside from the more staunch right-wingers and a handful of countries (Germany, Austrailia, and a few others) no one has worried about the affects on adults. Those complaining for the adults aren't asking for a ban, but more for a reassesement of our society's values. Of course, that sort of complaint is rather simple to push under the rug. Us, wrong? Ha!

Parents have stood up, and made their opinions heard about how they feel this is inapproprate for kids and for some sort of action to be taken. The problems stemming from these complaints are from campaigns led by this group, not by the group I believe this article was arguing against.

From my experience, morals are usually rooted into family-life and religion. Won't this make a standard, accross-the-board examination difficult to do? Aren't some people saying homosexuals are immoral? What about those saying that the US occupation in the mid-east is also immoral? Morals cover so much, yet never are the same for everyone. I feel that trying to examine them from a textbook definition will do nothing.

Also, what about racist games? Like this one here. Wouldn't this also fall under being "morally acceptable" according to the author's definition of seperation of playing and free speech? Even if the posters (in the game) were removed (advertising the racist organization's website) you'd still have the Jewish people dying saying "Oy Vey" or other cute racist stereo types.

Wait a second. I remember all black people talking with "yo" and "beeyatch". I also remember all cops being white. Do you remember the three homosexual stereotypes in Grand Theft Auto 3? Let me refresh your memories.

The only things they ever say are quotes from the Village People, and one of them even walks how homophobes might expect them to (think Rob Lowe at the end of Waynes World) All dressed in short-shorts, a hard hat and a Hawaiian shirt.

I feel that the power of suggestion is a strong one. I know advertising agencies would agree with me, since their careers are based on it! Target blacks, women, homosexuals, or any other group with a history of being abused or disrespected by society in any form of media and you are indirectly supporting the abuse. Sure, that's what society accepts. Or are you saying society is perfect, and whatever it wants we should give them without placing judgement on it?

The author of this article says: "Women certainly are treated in a stereotypical and arguably offensive way, however this is well within the bounds of offence that contemporary society deems to be allowable when taking the right of free speech into account"

If this is true, why the big hoopla over racist games? Isn't being racist a legal right in the United States?

I personally feel that games shouldn't be censored. I enjoy Grand Theft Auto 3, and I'm an adult. I also think that there's certain things that should be restricted for children.

The rating system is already in place, and when you remove the "free speech" part from the author's arguement you have some pretty obvious holes that support that this game is "bad". As a child, you have restricted rights. Don't talk when your teacher tells you not to, you can't go buy pornography, cigarettes, alcohol or a handgun.

No cigarettes, a handgun, or alcohol. Fine. It might kill you. But pornography? What, is it going to make you blind?

As long as explicit forms of media are restricted to children and supported by government and industry, there should not be obvious loopholes. If it is so important to warrant enforced ratings (for alcohol or R/NC-17 films for example) why allow other places for this "inapropriate material" to get in?

I am not advocating censorship, or even supporting many of the arguements made by the "family" organizations usually funded by conservative and religious organizations. I am just fed up with these double standards.

Expressing hate towards Jews is bad, but supporting sexism toward women or hate towards homosexuals is alright. Restricting sales on The Matrix, but allowing that same 10 year old to go buy hard rap (think Eminem times 20) and then play some Grand Theft Auto 3 all the while eating a pile of McDonalds french fries.

Morals don't have double-standards. People do.

#3 Actually I'm impressed with Matt's rant here !

However, we can't let him get away with that, so here are a few criticisms (feel free to add your own):

1) "... agnostic (means I haven't made up my mind regarding religion) ..."

That's not at all what it means. The word 'agnostic' was created by one Thomas Huxley who was famous for many things, but probably most noted for his staunch support for Darwin when he was under attack for his "natural selection" theories.

Huxley felt he didn't know enough, and that he could *never* know enough, to decide for himself whether or not there was such a thing as God, the metaphysical creator of all things. He borrowed the word 'gnosis', meaning 'knowledge' in Greek, and stuck the 'a' in front, an appropriate anithetical prefix for this word.

'Agnostic' means 'don't know about a creator', as Huxley defined it. It is a metaphysical reference absent any reference to religion.

Rephrase it.

2) "...and a handful of countries (Germany, Austrailia, and many others)... "

This statement is not self consistent. 'Many others' contradicts 'a handful'. The former implies large numbers, the latter implies small numbers.

Fix it.


3) There are several well made points here, and the overall point is well stated, with appropriate 'gravitas', at the end. However there were times that the reader is left wondering whether the auther (Matt) is going somewhere in particular, or is simply out for an afternoon's fishing.

Tighten it up.



;-)

#4 Agnostic is taken to mean you don't know or haven't made up your mind, and can also mean (in Huxley's definition) "I will never know". I specified which I label myself, since the word has fairly distinct meanings.

So no, I won't change that.

As for that contradictory statement, yeah. I originally wrote "handful" but then started to remember that more than just a few countries have banned games like this. So just a simple error. I'm surprised you were the one to point it out.

As for the overall flow, I think it's good enough for a public forum post. It's not going to be something I turn in for a grade, so I'm not too worried about that :)

#5 :-)