Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Hasta La Vista Homer
As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is the argument more valid as video game technology improves and the simulation of reality more seamless? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To summarize Plato’s argument against poets…
ReplyDelete1) Stories influence people who read them
2) Stories contain role models
3) Any behavior exhibited by role models will be exhibited by society
Conclusion: Poets should only write about good role models
The first premise is where this argument falls apart, because we cannot say for a fact that stories influence those who read or view them. In order to make this point in the modern world, there have to be a lot of unbiased and repeatable studies done which show that there is a causation between the actions of characters in stories and the real-life choices of people who read these stories. While violent video games do portray behavior that we don’t want children doing, we have no evidence to say that video games influence a child’s behavior in a way that overrides the lessons in non-violence that they receive from their parents, their school, and their society.
However, while we may acknowledge the unscientific nature of Plato’s premise, we can consider the moral aspects of what we do know. We know that when a person plays a violent videogame, they often will look another person in the face, even if it is just the rendering of a human face on a screen, and cause this person violent harm. We can ask then, is it moral to play these violent videogames? First I will separate violent harm into two categories: physical and emotional. I will also limit morality to interactions between real-life humans because, as we reasoned in class, a person can only act morally when they must consider how their actions affect another person.
I argue that under most circumstances it is moral for people to cause violent harm by using a videogame. When a person is causing any sort of violent harm to an artificial intelligence character in a game, morality does not apply because this is not an interaction between two people. It is only when multiple people are playing a game together that morality comes into play. When two or more people are playing a game there is the possibility of violent emotional harm but never violent physical harm. Shooting someone’s avatar in a game can cause violent emotional harm, but in certain games this emotional harm is justified and even moral. In some games, gameplay frequently involves causing violent physical harm to someone else’s avatar. This violent gameplay is part of the game and when someone chooses to play this game, they choose to engage in this activity. Therefore, if someone causes their avatar physical harm and as a result the real person experiences emotional harm, this is still a moral action. For example, winning a goal in soccer may cause the other team emotional harm, however winning goals is part of the game and the other team knows this.
The few instances when causing violent emotional harm through a videogame is immoral occur when the gameplay does not normally involve certain actions, such as killing other people’s avatars. For example, on certain Minecraft servers the gameplay is advertised as non-violent and cooperative. However, people can still join the server and kill other people’s avatars, including those of their teammates. This can cause violent emotional harm and is not part of the gameplay. Therefore this kind of violent harm is immoral.
Similarly to what Erica says, Plato starts off his chain of arguments regarding censoring false media by making the assertion that they have a significant impact on minors. In order for the rest of his argument to be valid, this premise must contain truth. However, it simply does not. Understandably, Plato could not conduct large scale studies in his day, but he could use common sense to determine that this statement is far too generalized. In fact, in the age of research, the scientific community largely disagrees with Plato. In a meta-analysis of 106 strictly empirical studies, the Swedish Media Council finds that there is no evidence to suggest a causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. They do admit there is a correlation between those with violent behaviors and violent video games; however, they say that “underlying factors such as mental behavioural problems and the family-social interaction” are largely to blame for this (Swedish Media Council, 4). This logic could then be used directly against Plato. If it seemed Homer was corrupting the youth by filling them with lies and false hopes, this assumption is wrong. Rather, according to the research, these children were already corrupted, and simply exercised a means of expressing it. The study does concede that “the research has, up until now, not succeeded in demonstrating with proof that the hypothesis that violent computer games make the players more inclined to violence, does not mean that such an effect may not exist” (4). They do note though, “If such a causal relationship exists, it is, however, weak in relation to the other factors that are known to affect the incidence of violent behaviour among children and youths” (4). Basically, video-games could influence the youth to an extent, however this is overly dramatized, and other social factors are ignored for influencing a child’s behavior. Thus, Plato’s argument falls, as there is no inherent moral dilemma in giving an angry kid an angry toy. It will not change who they are. One might rebut this by suggesting that more realistic technology could become an underlying factor, therefore making video games a media of corruption. However, there are no empirics that imply a change in correlation between aggressive people and aggressive games over time. If there were, then maybe this could insinuate that as technology changes the relationship does too. However, it simply does not. Basically, this argument applies to every form of media. Books and movies are in the same dilemma; however the studies show that we really give them too much credit. In fact, one could make the argument that it is the moral right to expose this “indecent” media to children, as it would make them more educated. But for now, the only thing Arnold Schwarzenegger should terminate is his base-less agenda.
ReplyDeleteI believe a case could be made to prohibit video games, I just would not agree with it because I think that what the individual is effected by is up to the individual and is not the games fault. I do not believe the argument is flawed however and can be applicable to video games. Many video games are very interactive and can stimulate the player in a way that is so engaging that they may become obsessed and even adjust their own lives to make them more similar to the game. The argument against video games becomes more valid as the games become more and more real and engage the player even more. In conclusion I believe that video games should not be prohibited but if we are talking in the how I will raise my future children, I will allow them to play video games but on limited hours so they do not become too engaged.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe their is any form of entertainment that should be prohibited from teenagers. This is because I find "inappropriate" television and things of that sort to teach me more than any health class I have ever taken, and I am learning it in an unconscious way so it stays in mind better. If society was heavily monitored for teenagers they would not have as much knowledge about the world in general and a lot of pop culture because they would be blocked off from such things. I do believe, however, that a teenager should be eased into more "inappropriate" entertainment because if they learn too much about the world too young from the wrong sources, it could affect their personal development.
“Morally justified” is an interesting term to use. I believe that Schwarzeneggers’ intention is moral, however not by a Socrates definition based on reason, but by our vague intrinsic understanding of morality as a modern society. We today might use the phrase, “he was trying to do the right thing.” As it logically makes sense that violent video games would lead to violent culture, I truly believe Governor Schwarzeneggers’ heart was in the right place, especially with the increasingly and alarmingly frequent acts of violence such as school shootings. Socrates would even agree that in acting for the good of society the Governor was “ruling” well, assuming a political power accepts the same role as a philosopher king. However, as Erica and Max have both pointed out, the flaw in his argument lies in his assumption that society is influenced by the stories they read, and in this case, the video games they play. Easy as it is to assume violent videos games correlate with a somewhat recent increase in violent crime; this connection is purely a paranoid one, exposing the hole in Plato's logic. Studies have shown there is no correlation between violent video games and increased violent crime. Even though logically and philosophically it makes sense that exposure to a vivid and lifelike violent alter reality would influence the gamers’ perception, creating a new widespread tolerance of violence, this is simply not statistically the case. With no evidence proving Plato’s and Schwarzeneggers’ parallel claims, it is of course, unconstitutional to ban video games and an infringement of freedom of speech, raising an interesting counter argument to every assertion Plato makes.
ReplyDeletePlato argues based on logic and reason, while many proven facts of life are not logical. Therefor can we really apply any of his teachings to our modern setting without research of their actual validity? We, as a society, often attribute our problems to the media; celebrity role models influencing children, advertising creating impossible standards of beauty, glamorization of drugs and narcotic substances. I am no expert, and I am not claiming any of these statements are true or untrue. It was merely a coincidence I happened upon a presentation of statistical data last year that proved a lack of correlation between increased violent video game sales and increased violent crimes. Yet, as intelligent as Plato is, stumbling upon this study has made me question the truth of any of his “inarguable” claims. It may take more convincing before I start applying his philosophies to my own life.
I believe that a case can be made to prohibit minors from playing violent video games. It would be very difficult if we were to regard Plato's thoughts on which types of governments work the best. As we have learned in class, Plato believes that Aristocracy is the best form of government that there is. Unfortunately for him, America is a Democracy which was farther down on his list of governments. He believes that when one lives in Democracy it is a vote, not for expertise, but for popularity. In Schwarzenegger's case, he is not as lucky since video games are so popular, they would not be restrained for children. Most philosophers and wise men would agree that violent video games are not the greatest thing a child could do with their past time, but unfortunately for those philosophers since there are more people who believe that violent video games are not bad for children they cannot win the battle in our democratic system. This is where Plato's ideas begin to intrigue me even more. Before reading his opinions on democracy, I believed that we lived in a fair and just country. However, after reading his thoughts it would almost seem like all political debates and battles would be a popularity contest. Plato presents excellent reasoning which is that in a democracy whoever has more followers wins. If for instance, America was to live as an aristocracy with philosophers running the country they would be able to find the moral decision in the situation. They would most likely choose the decision where restriction would be made with violent video games and children. Once again, Plato has found a way for me to rethink my life with philosophical ideas.
ReplyDeleteWe can see that Plato has taken a strong disliking to Homer. His reasoning is a little obscure and really doesn’t make sense when put in context of today’s society. Plato argues that many characters in Homer’s poems and stories to immoral things. Because a child’s mind is easily controlled and manipulated, he believes these stories will somehow reflect the immoral behavior onto the students. Plato concludes that teaching these kinds of stories and poems will create immoral children, who will in turn grow up to be immoral guardians. As Plato later states, a society governed by morality is the best state. Because the ruling of a state depends on the education of those ruling it, they must be moral. By teaching them these immoral things, they are compromising society as a whole.
ReplyDeletePlato clearly makes some bold assumptions here. He assumes that learning about a subject will automatically want the student to emulate the model. However, this can’t possibly be true. Look at society today. We learn about all sorts of historical figures that range from Rosa Parks to Hitler. This obviously does not have the extreme effects that Plato thinks it would.
Plato argues that the best rules are philosophers. Philosophers by definition are able to seek out what is good and what is not. Does it not make sense for Philosophers to be able to realize when something is not moral and should not be followed? In a similar fashion, in order to know what is good, one needs to know what is bad.
Part of playing violent video games is knowing that it is indeed a game, not reality. We need to take a similar approach and realize that as long as we make small precautions to make sure children can distinguish from the two, there really should not be a problem.