Simulating Good and Evil by Marcus Schulzke

Author:Marcus Schulzke
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Rutgers University Press

Amoralism: Is It Just a Game?

So far, I have argued that simulating immoral actions in videogames is not genuinely wrong and that it can even be enlightening. However, this leaves another question: why do so many people have an intuitive sense that some actions performed in games are wrong if there is no wrongdoing involved? One of the central debates here revolves around an apparent contradiction that Morgan Luck calls the “gamer’s dilemma.” He argues that many gamers have permissive attitudes about virtual violence but that they will likely condemn virtual pedophilia. He says of gamers that “either they acknowledge that acts of virtual murder and virtual paedophilia are morally prohibited, or they acknowledge that both are morally permissible.”25 As he sees it, either conclusion leads to problems. Prohibiting virtual murder would make videogame content more restrictive than other media, such as films, while permitting virtual pedophilia would leave us sanctioning unpalatable simulated acts.

Luck’s reasoning is reminiscent of an earlier point from Peter Singer, who comments on user-generated simulations of pedophilia in Second Life. As Singer explains, it is possible for adults to control child characters and then use them to have sex with other player-controlled characters.26 There is no real sexual exploitation of minors because those involved are consenting adults who only use the child avatars as costumes for their fantasies. His argument then takes the opposite direction as Luck’s, suggesting that violence is actually more problematic than pedophilia. As a committed utilitarian, Singer thinks that simulated acts must inflict some harm to be immoral. He draws on the studies linking videogames to violence that I discussed in chapter 2 to reach the conclusion that although there is often no harm in simulating pedophilia, there is harm in simulating violence. The underlying point is similar to Luck’s: that we must be more consistent when evaluating simulated behaviors.

Various attempts have been made to solve the gamer’s dilemma or to at least clarify its implications and foreclose possible answers. Young considers whether the difference between simulations of child murder and pedophilia could be attributable to divergent motives between players who enjoy one activity or the other, and concludes that the motives are indistinguishable.27 He contends that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that players who enjoy pedophilia are more likely to engage in it than that murderous players are likely to kill, so the simulated actions cannot be distinguished in terms of players’ intentions to enact their desires in real life. Young likewise argues that if finding enjoyment in virtual pedophilia is reprehensible, then the same must be true of murder.

Christopher Bartel thinks that it is possible to distinguish virtual pedophilia from murder because the former qualifies as pornography.28 He claims that pedophilia sexualizes inequality and in doing so harms women. The imagery itself constitutes a harm, while images of violence do not. This argument rests heavily on being able to classify simulations as pornography and on showing that pornography is harmful, which are both questionable propositions that have yet to be adequately demonstrated.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.