Week 12: The second article

So i published an article about ethical gaming and can it be a source of good, i wanted to change tack and explore another issue that i think might make an interesting discussion for the class 

is i found this article on games industry.biz by Mike Williams Titled  

Robert Yang: "The game industry needs to get laid"

Developer Robert Yang talks about the game industries issues with sexual content the link of the article can be found below:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2016-03-18-robert-yang-the-game-industry-needs-to-get-laid

in the article Yang has called for the industry to be more open with topics like sexuality noting how sexual content is banned or minimized in certain spaces. and according to yang its the case of the industry being afraid to talk about it or even tackling sexual content. 

Yang later discusses the problems he found when creating games with sexual content especially with Paypal and twitch.tv 

"'Certain sexualities are banned.' Which sexualities? They won't tell you. They say not to cross the line, but the line is invisible and shifting," Yang said about PayPal.

He later explains that if games are transcending into this powerful medium then idea's and policies need to changing and running form ethical issues need to be looked at and not banned 

"If games want to be the most powerful industry and art form in the world, don't freak out about dick jokes," Yang said at the end of his talk. "Everyone loves to play games, some games are about sex. Don't ban games just because they are about sex. Society will not collapse. Chill out, go get laid. Go get over it."

this is a interesting topic to discuss and in class and also as it might prove an interesting article piece for my final essay as there is many ethical issues with this that can be raised and what if these games are available to people under the legal age or 

i know film and tv have sex scenes and have done for a long time and have dealt with serious ethical issues with sex like rape but games have not and with the interactive element there needs to be caution and the subject of sex needs to be handled careful but i do agree with yang a bit that the industry can't hide form it if it proclaims to be this art form and must find a away to approach the subject in a delicate manor and not use it as a tool mechanic. 

it also stems the questions if these sex scenes and games are there must be guidelines in place as it could be easy to force in a interactive world a sex scene on a character would that not be ethical wrong?  

there are so many interesting ethical issues with the statement by yang but i do agree its issues that need to be discussed 

Week 12: Open forum find two articles that to discuss

For Week 12 the task was to find two articles that you wanted two discuss in class either thgat will be the focus of your essay or just something that interest you 

so the first Article i found that i wanted to talk about is this one i found in the guardian online website the title: Ethical Gaming can it be a source of good? the link of the article is below

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/12/ethical-video-gaming-games-for-change-festival

in the article it discuss the use of games in a much more serious content than what people's interpretations of games are and wanting to push the boundaries of games and show the potential of what games and the messages they can convey to the audience instead of the the perception that still exist with games being childish, violent and shallow,

Asi Burak quotes in the article "People understand that games are powerful, but they're also scared of this power," says Burak. "We need to change the perception that all games are shallow, violent and childish, because they are not."

Minecraft has already started to be implemented in schools academic learning as its been proven t help children learning process using tools that the have a strong affiliation to with helping in computer programming or even build and structural how things work its a useful teaching tool. 

and they are powerful tools and the unquie thing about games is that it can immerse you in them and give you information or teach you something instead of being used to entertain like in Dead Island where the objective is to survive the Zombie Apocalypse by killing any zombie in your path. But lets flip that what if the game is about you surviving an actual ethical situation say your in Law Enforcement You are a rookie officer assigned to a training officer for the first six months of your employment. The training officer is a 20-year veteran and is a close friend pf thee Assistant Chief of Police and the brother-in-law of the Watch Commander. The third day that you are working with him you respond to a burglary call at a local convenience store. It is 2:30 am and the manager has been notified. You are directed to wait 30-35 minutes for his arrival. A short time later you observe your partner take a soda, candy and a bag of chips. He consumes the soda and chips. When the manager arrives, the two of you depart. What, if anything, should you do?
 

probably not the best example in the world but it would be interesting to gauge what the person would do and doing it in a game environment also the justification could be that it helps the trainee gain experience if a situation like that cropped up what would the right course of action to take, without causing any harm. 

The potential of using games as teaching devices is well known but its still an interesting research topic looking it in terms of  is games mature and ready to tackling more serious ethical issues like rape? 

Week 11: : Virtual Virtues, Virtual Vices

For Week 11 we had to read Virtual Virtues, Virtual Vices and answer the follow question for class

Do you see the relationship of STAs to POTAs more like Aristotle or Nietzsche? Explain. 

To answer this question first we need to know what Aristotle's or Nietzsche meaings and relationship of STA's to POTAs before we can decide if it is more like Aristotle or Nietzsche 

So lets take the view point of the Aristotle perspective in Aristotle's mind it is clear that some acts remain vices irrespective of the content in which they occur, nor is the principle of the meaning applicable to them already with this Aristotle opinion would be that unequivocally that POTAs are vices and are not actions of a virtuous person 

and if we use examples of theft, murder and adultery in the virtual space how would they be judge by Aristotle, we know Aristotle is concerned with being good rather than what counts as a good act. so the  the issue with Aristotle is not much with whether murder is a right or wrong / good or bad, but whether engaging with murder is what the virtual person would do. 

But what about Nietzsche take would be first thing pointed out is that Nietzsche proclaims that its immoral to say What is good for one is good for another so in sense for Nietzsche Morality is contingent on one's strength of will as is what should be deem moral or virtuous with the consequence of what is virtue or conversely a vice for one may be different to another. 

for example in the game space world is a space where things can be completely different to our outside world. because the relationship to out actual world has been altered to fit within the story context of the game. the rules, the costumes have been altered so to the way we interact in that environment will be different. and even your avatar the embodiment of yourself will be different you will look different be given special powers even play as a different gender or sexuality this is all possible in the game space. 

and it could be in that virtuous space that i am virtuous cause im big and strong and take what i want when i want it 

so with these two viewpoints in mind i would have to go with Nietzsche stance rather than Aristotle for the relationship of STA's to POTA's 

why you may ask just simply but its hard to justify with the statement What is good for one is good for another as its what could be good in the game space which is not real like you need to steal a powerful weapon to defeat the next boss just with that the act of stealing in Aristotle's view is moral bad even thou it can be justified and in that world in his eyes it is still wrong regardless if its in that world or this 

your actions in this game space is not hurting anyone as its not like for instance you need to attack someone in this game space cause they are in your path its not like you would perform that same act in the real world its just like viewing a tv show or film that has violence or shows something that fits into the story but would not work in our actual space. 

Aristotle's Argument i can understand his point of view but would disagree with in the terms of this question  as i have played games that i have killed people, stolen from people and i have never expressed the desire to go out and commit these in real life just like i have driven a formula one car in the game space does not mean im going to jump into the a formula one car and win the championship or i have played football manager does not give me the expertise to go and manage a professional football club.

the view of Sicart also backs this up with the view of "the moral being who understands the contingency relation is free to experience the game space without the threat of the practice having leading to a detrimental change in virtuousness"

the only question i would take from this what if you are doing these acts to a fellow player in this game space and not characters that are being controlled by the computer but are in control of another player? 

Week 10: IGDA Ethical Code For Game Designers

For week 10 the task was to read the IGDA Ethical code and answer the following question

Do game designers need an ethical code? Is the IGDA Code a solid ethical code for game designers?

So lets start by answering the first question Do game designers need an ethical code?

The answer is in my opinion is yes they do need an ethical code and here is my reasons for this without a code of ethics game designers would be given free license to design a game without caring about the moral implications of putting a game on the market can bring

found this interesting article on gamasutra that will help answer the first part of the question
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2181/ethics_of_game_design.php?print=1

"We as an industry do have a moral responsibility," says Peter Molyneux, CEO of Lionhead Studios and creator of hits fromBlack and White to Fable. "Anyone who does something for a mass market has a responsibility. You tread carefully on the lessons that you teach. That line that 'if a game is fun, it is okay'-that sounds trivial. If it is obvious this is an artificial world and you can't do these things in real life, then that is more acceptable. But if it parades itself as a real world, you have to be careful about that."

this can go without saying that as Peter points out when you are creating something for the mass market you have a responsibility that when you create something for that market that you understand any issue's that might happen and can fully justify them why you have put them in a game. 

further along the article it states that:

Executives at Take-Two Interactive Software, publisher of GTA: Vice City, don't comment publicly on the ethics of the game. But privately they grouse that the content in the game is no worse than what you find in an R-rated movie or a rap music CD. It is the same kind of content you can find in an Emmy-winning episode of The Sopranos. They consider it hypocritical for politicians to single out the game industry for criticism. And they note that the game carries a "Mature" rating, meaning kids under 17 aren't supposed to play it and parents should police what their children play.

Which i believe is also true that releasing violent games in a market is a must and designers have made sure they warned that the game contains story's and mechanics that are not suitable for a certain age group they can't do no more its up to the parents to make sure if they don't want their child playing those games, as the example given the sopranos has just as much swearing and death scenes and can't solely criticise the game industry and then hail a show like that with emmy awards when they have gave the same warnings about content as these shows and films do as well. 

But as commented before games are entering this realm of realism with enhancements in technology that has brought certain games that could become reailty as quoted in the same article

It's only a matter of time until a developer produces a serial killer game, a mass genocide game, or the next Postal-esque homicide simulator. But whoever actually makes these games cannot claim ignorance as a defense of their product. The ground work has been laid for the ethics of this industry, and thanks to countless violent and objectionable games that have already been brought to market, the boundaries of good taste and ethical responsibility are now known. While defining the ethics of an individual game can be difficult at the extremities, these decisions become clearer.

The game industry can't just ignore the ethical standards they have been building throughout the years and the boundaries of good taste and ethical responsibility have been set it is just the case if they do something that questions it they can't use the ignorance claim and must have justification and be held accountable what is brought to the market is questionable. 

To answer the second question Is the IGDA Code a solid ethical code for game designers?

This is a difficult question as some of the IGDA ethics are good and solid which i agree too and would find hard not use in any work environment.

to check out the IGDA code here is the link https://www.igda.org/?page=codeofethics

I don't have any problems with section 1 principles they all seem very straight forward and clear.

Section 2 and 3 throws up some things that could be questioned
one in particular is 
From Section 3

Adhere to fair schedules and contracts, never committing to delivering more than we can reasonably achieve while maintaining standards of workplace quality of life;

What if something goes wrong in production that results in over time or a client decides that they need to release the game sooner or things in the game he/she are not happy about then you might have to schedule over time to compensate and if they are not willing as it breaks they're contract whats stopping the manager replace said person with someone who will do the overtime

i know they're are issue's with crunch and not being paid for it that is another discussing entirely but these are issues that can crop up and its not the game industry that has this issue all industry can suffer this same problem. 

From Section 2 

For the integrity of ourselves as professionals and as a professional organization, we will be aware of and adhere to all local laws in the region in which we operate, unless there is an overwhelming ethical conflict in so doing;

The reason i bring this up if there is ethical conflict in adhere to a country or cities law's why start or move your company where this might happen, there are many countries and cities have laws that in other countries would not be accepted and vice versa so why set up your company in a place you know there might be ethical conflict in the first place 

i might not be understanding the question right maybe but find it strange to have that there. 

Overall the code provided by IGDA is a good solid code for any developer to start with especially starting up but i would hope they would continue to add and develop it as i have pointed out there is flaws with the code.  

Week 9: There Are Wrongs and Then There Are Wrongs.

For week 9 reading for Ethics in the Virtual World was to read chapter 7: There are wrongs and then there are wrongs and answer the following question 

If you accept that it is OK to kill random people in a video game (if you do not think it is OK feel free to argue this point), would it be OK to seek out to intentionally kill only individuals identified as homosexual in the game? Why?

This is a tough question as my moral take on this is no it would not be ok to kill random people, but them in a game world can i justify that then maybe i can let me explain. 

Throughout the history of games one of the main aspects of these virtual worlds is defeating your enemy in order to complete levels or the game on the whole from Pac-Man devouring his enemies once he has eaten a power dot to now where we have skyrim, fallout 4, grand theft auto the list goes on where roaming these lands and worlds and killing npc or enemies are a regular occurrence especially if you gain new weapons/ loot that will help you further along in the game. so in that aspect of killing random there seems to be no issue with players and developers killing random's in games if its part of a quest or there is something to gain

so lets see about the second half of the would it be ok to seek out to intentionally kill only individuals identified as homosexual in the game? why? 

This is where the line is drawn for me personally my moral's would not allow myself to go hunting and intentionally kill someone for what is in effect who they are lets see the examples in two fictitious games talked about in the book S.H (Shit Happens) where you kill random people from all walks of live without knowing who they are or what you do then yes your brain or morals would not see a problem as it you can't associate with those characters and so the only association you can build is the fact they are just pixels or are just seen as targets and so no emotional ties are there to stop you from killing them. 

but the other fictitious game mentioned is called R.A.C.I.S.T (Rage Against Community: Intercept, Segregate and Terminate). In the book it uses Jews and that the object is to seek out discriminate so this game is all about killing identities either being gay or following a religion, this makes the game about killing generic people rather than nobody's. so if you do play this game your moral code is very accepting about discrimination or in fact you gain some pleasure from it. 

So lets put in a game that does exist what if in skyrim lets say you were ask by your Jarl to go out and hunt down every single khajiit because the Jarl did not like the smell of them, i personally would not be able to go along with that and would either quit the game and not go back or would end up fighting against the jarl for his view.

So i believe there is a difference to killing randoms to killing characters that have an identity as soon as that character has a identity or an close association that has been built it will put more meaning towards that character and killing them will mean more. 

But if i have such a problem with killing people with identities in games then how can i justify just killing a random in a game it would be like if i walked up to random and killed them on the street i don't know them so it should be no problem for me as i don't have a emotional connection to that person but i know myself and  my moral's that is wrong and would not do that but i have no problem in the game space world 

which also leads to virtual rape and pedophilla in games which are big social no's but why is murder more easily accepted i understand killing can happen either in self defence or in war but is still seen as an unacceptable act just like rape and pedophilla which has no place in a game worlds but there can be argument that if television and films can portray these social issue's why do games avoid it is it the fact as a player controlling these actions would be like doing it yourself and in that case why is their no problems murdering in games? 
It might be a time that what if these are put in games for educational purposes or to help recognize these issue's could take place.

For me and morally i hope these issue's are never brought into a game world as in my eye's games are for entertainment but ethically i can see you have to ask these questions and realise that these questions are there 

In games with morality systems, I've never seen the evil path handled well.

Interesting post i discovered about how games have not handle the evil path well here is the link at the bottom:
http://forum.bioware.com/topic/515630-in-games-with-morality-systems-ive-never-seen-the-evil-path-handled-well/

It discuss the fact that games should not give you an option of being goods and evil and takes the fun away for going through that yourself

he also makes the example that all evil guys hide their true beliefs and intentions like for example in Star wars Palaptine is seen as a good guy at the beginning and did good stuff to make people believe in him then he revealed his true intentions when he was positioned correctly to make his move.

i thought it was quite interesting and a very true statement you don't normal have a choice of being good or being bad, it could be the case that it has developed and changes over time and certain situations or you hide your true intentions to get what you want in the long haul

Moral Decision making in Games

While researching the last chapter found this interesting article in Game Studies the link is below if you want to check it out:

http://gamestudies.org/0902/articles/schulzke

It talks about that now games are giving players in these open worlds moral choices but sometimes the moral choices in these games are only slight and in order for the moral choice in games to become more meaningful they must become more calculated and have far reaching consequences. the article highlights the Fallout series as giving the player thoughtful moral problems and multiple paths to resolve them

It claims that video games are the latest art to be accused of corrupting morality. with Plato and Aristotle argued over the merits of tragedy, contemporary social theorists argue and debate the effects of video games. while the difference with games to earlier art forms is that games are interactive. and this engagement in fantasy worlds allows Aristotle vision of cathartic purpose that he had in mind but the educational function he probably did not anticipate.

Moral choices in games could be seen as misguided too as how are these moral choices decided through the developer so you are in a sense giving trust to the developer that he understands the moral implications of each decision and while Fallout deals with moral issues effectively, grand theft auto deals with that when you kill innocent people you can drive around a few minutes and avoid capture by respraying your car or hiding and then it is forgotten about. 

Week 8: Are Meanings Virtually The Same

After Reading week we were set the task to read chapter 6: Are meanings virtually the same in ethics in the virtual world and answer the following question for class:

What is Power's argument for moral policing in computer games?

What is meant by the term 'morally corrupt'?

Is it fun to 'break taboos'? Use arguments from the chapter to support your position.

So lets start with the first question: What is Power's argument for moral policing in computer games?

Power declares that to engage in these STA's is morally wrong and its not because they are an equivalent to POTA's but a representation of them in other words when engaging in taboo subjects as symbolic they represent taboo subject matter on the outside world. With that you look at GTA where in its game play you can shoot, murder and run over people does that mean it is promoting that it's ok to do that in reality no it is not as even in GTA they have put consequences for those actions like police arresting/ killing you if you get caught 

Or in Skyrim if you attack and kill someone you are then attacked by the guards of the city if you killed someone innocent in the game or if you steal things from an inn or an shop and get caught you are arrested and either pay a fine or get thrown in jail all though games have violence and even taboo subjects they are consequences to those actions and it gives you choices as well.

What is meant by the term morally corrupt?

To understand what is meant by this first i wanted to breakdown the definitions of Morally and Corrupt

Morally is to have a sense of what is right, good and truthful based on an implied common standard or from within yourself

Corrupt is dishonest, erroneous and untrustworthy conduct, usually by way of bribery or alteration of original intentions that ultimately leads to a bastardized view of original goals.

When these two words combine, several definitions of moral corruption arise. First is that one's view of what is right and good is simply upside-down or not in-line with the agreed standard. Second, one can be moral but achieve the goals of those morals in dishonest ways (Plato described this concept as the "honest lie"). The third scenario is one that needs a follow-up:  can a person who does not have any morals be morally corrupt?

Is it fun to 'break taboos'? 

The answer of that question would be yes it's human nature to try and break rules or taboo's that they live by or the majority stand by and finding a medium that they can do that is even better in the book Thomas Nys states "Knowing that it is wrong is part of the fun and games. The thrill of such actions is precisely that they transgress ethical boundaries. That in some cases there is allure that some STA's have and being able to do it in a virtual space where characters and worlds don't really exist gives the player a feeling of immersion that once they are done they have not really harmed anyone, and being able to live out a fantasy that they would not normally do in the outside world its the same when someone is immersed in a book or a film and the can imagine that world and doing those activities without harming or disrespecting anyone in the real world.

with that there is an attraction especially now of people role playing in bad characters or anti hero's being able to do morally questionable things but still look like you are the good guy in it all its that immersion that they can engage with different emotions and identities in relative safety in the virtual world. this is backed up by Jeroen Jansz 2005. 

but in games now they are recognize this fact and giving people the option to play the bad guy in skyrim you can join two factions that could be seen as questionable the thieves guild where you have to steal and rob from people some are justified but others might not be but they have morals and do  not rob from their own and also the Dark Brotherhood where they are assassins and purposely take jobs that involve killing people no matter if they are innocent or not if they have been paid then the job is done

But you have the option of not joining these factions just don't complete any of the quests or refuse to join them.

Also Fable gives you the option of your character being good or being evil and also infamous gives you the choice of good karma or bad karma and have the choice to save the city in the end or watch fall into ruin

So i believe that games have begun to recognize that players like challenging there morals and breaking taboos in virtual worlds and are developing its game play to enhance that. 

HOW VIDEO GAMES CAN HELP WITH DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY

So maybe another random post that does not  relate to the reading material but i found interesting is that how games are helping anxiety and depression

Please read the article below for more information about the topic as i'm not going in depth with my analysis but for a serious games point of perspective its great that games can immerse you in problems and worlds you have no clue about as you don't suffer these problems in a sense showing the positive aspect of games is that immersion and being able gain a perspective on something you would normal won't.

http://geekandsundry.com/how-video-games-can-help-with-depression-and-anxiety/

Or even helps someone recognize they might have a disorder they thought they did not have its great that science is now developing and seeing games as a tool rather than just an entertainment device for kids

i stop the game in skyrim cause i personally did not like what i did

Just something i wanted to post as i talk about in class the other day and i thought there is some relevance to it.

Recently i was back playing skyrim and in between traveling to a quest i was attacked by a drunk nord so i in turn engaged him during the fight i thought it was strange that he was using his fist while i had  my battleaxe and before i finished question this i killed him after a few hits with my axe upon then searching his body i discovered he did not have a weapon on him at all

as i walked away i felt really guilty as i fought him with a weapon while he was drunk and did not know his actions and if i just fought him off with my fists then he would still be alive and so i felt a bit of my moral code flowing into my character in the game and i actual stop the game and return to an early version before i killed the drunken Nord

Hoping i could rectify what i just did but when i traveled the same route i was attacked again but this time a thief attacked me with a weapon trying to steal my gold which i fought off  and killed but i felt justified in that killing than i did when killing the drunken nord

the reason for posting it for some they might of not cared about there actions cause it is a virtual world for me thou as playing this character in this world  in my head have gave some of the same morals that i have and although it is a virtual world i believe that my character would not react in that manor against an unarmed man.

i thought it was interesting giving the previous discussing in class that it's just pixels and the virtual space why have those feeling for a character that does not exist but what if you make this attachment and in your own mind is a representation of yourself in this virtual space?

Week 6: The Cost and Benefit of Virtual Violence

For week 6 the task was to read Chapter 5: The Cost and Benefit of Virtual Violence in ethics in the virtual world and answer the question below

What is Utilitarianism?

How does one decide which pleasure is prefered?

So lets start and answering What is Utilitarianism?

first once again i wanted to find out the definition of this word as i did not know the meaning before delving into the chapter the meaning of utilitarianism is:

An ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain).

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html#ixzz45dvO8jZi

that is the classic version as described by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill so what they are describing is that the moral act that achieves the most happiness is morally good while the moral act that achieves the least happiness then must not be classed as good.

so in a sense any STA that achieves unhappiness then that act must be prohibited? going by Bentham and Mill

but the both differ to what happiness should be measured by Bentham believes happiness can be measured quantitatively by using an hedonistic calculus

  "(Gr.hedone pleasure) a method of working out the sum total of pleasure and pain produced by an act, and thus the total value of its consequences; also called the felicific calculus; sketched by Bentham in chapter 4 of his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). When determining what action is right in a given situation, we should consider the pleasures and pains resulting from it, in respect of their intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity (the chance that a pleasure is followed by other ones, a pain by further pains), purity (the chance that pleasure is followed by pains and vice versa), and extent (the number of persons affected). We should next consider the alternative courses of action: ideally, this method will determine which act has the best tendency, and therefore is right. Bentham envisaged the calculus could be used for criminal law reform: given a crime of a certain kind it would be possible to work out the minimum penalty necessary for its prevention." 

and this enables all activities to be judge on the same level

While Mill believes a qualitative is best to measure you need to distinguish between lower pleasures and higher pleasures and he regards there is a difference value with different pleasure's. 
So According to Mill for an action to be of Moral worth its not enough for it to be analysed through a person's happiness 

So if we think in the game space if a player is inflicted an STA on an NPC and has gained some satisfaction and enjoyment even thou the NPC does not feel any pain from this then by Bentham version then it must be morally good. 
and with Mill version that you should not pursue and activity that makes me happy but at the same time reduces the general happiness and should purse activities that not only make me happy but has the benefit of everyone else and if that action generates  in someone or some people then that action must be morally bad.

I kind of hard to agree with either theories for Bentham for example i hate going to the hospital does that then imply that hospitals are morally bad
and with Mill although it makes sense to go with the majority of people feelings does that mean it is right what if the vast majority favors going to war but the minority favors not going to war does that mean the majority is right i kind of disagree especially if the majority don't have the right information or facts to back there decision.

To answer the second question, How does one decided which pleasure is preferred?

this is a difficult question to answer how do you decide which pleasure is preferred so if you class a dangerous act as a act that you risk yourself and others harm  or a harmful act that results in direct harm or injury and finally a risk increasing act that acts is a risk that increases the chances of a person in doing a harmful or dangerous act 

in games this is views that where sensationalized a few years ago and even bought the families to launch legal suits to computer game companies 
read the article below for more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1295920.stm 

Even thou in previous article's as discussed there is evidence that games don't cause aggression and if so it more affects empathy and social skills than aggression. and in some cases as posted on earlier can help putting people in situations in the virtual world that deals with dangerous and harmful acts and realise they might need help.

Manufacturers will always fall back on that there is not enough evidence or scientific proof that says violence in video games will lead to violent acts in the outside world 

For instance as i was growing up i used to practice and fight pretend wrestling matches with my friends as i wanted copy my heroes at the time even thou the wrestling shows show reels telling the audience never to try this at home. 

The point i'm making is that in all media that there is we  as people have access to a variety of content and influence us that could be deemed harmful, dangerous and a risk and some people find it pleasurable some wont see it that way, So you can't hide content it's up to the individual to make the choice what the they want access to it.

For example as an individual i don't like or want to watch violent horror films like saw i find the mutilation and the murders in the movie distasteful does not mean that the content should them be banned as others might find that entertaining and its up to the viewers or players choice if they want to continue playing or watching if it affects their moral's as when you see the product they are not hiding what will be in there. 

Week 5: Kant's Call of Duty

For Week 5 we had two tasks too complete first was to read chapter 4: Kant's Call of Duty and answer the following question 

What is the 'catagorical imperative'?

Another task is too listen to this podcast  The Economics of Good and Evil: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ybnh1#play which i will talk more about in another post 

So for now i want to answer the question set What is Catagorical Imperative?

First of all i have no idea what this means before i read the chapter so first i want to see if i can find a briefly the meaning of this before reading the chapter what i found is that it means: (in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation which is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose.

So my understanding is that its moral condition that will not change for any circumstances regardless of a person feeling on the subject and that they are driven by reason and rationale than as opposed to personal desires and goals so to Kant its when someone acts morally and rationally

in the book it talks about two formulations of Kant's theory the first formulation being that the person is driven by recourse to reason, in as much as it stipulates what the rational person ought to do in virtue of being a rational person

The second formulation involves in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.

in the book it disagrees with the first formulation and say it fails within single player games as their is not another person to consider when willing an action 

and the second formulation the same goes as there is not another person to act to in this scenario.

but what about multi player has implied the second formulation with bad sportsmanship and disrespecting others but that can occur even without the presence of STA's and with the first formulation that has agreed to enter the space know that several STA's can occur and if they do enter this space know full well that certain sta's do exist that cause distress then they are cause themselves harm and thus failing in there duty to protect themselves.

so this means that you should not engage with STA's because they are 'driven' by the sense of desire as opposed to reason and is likely people are to repeat STA's in reality as we are failing to do one's duty

which i'm sure i can't agree with by not engaging with STA's and ignore this problem unlike other media such as tv and film where they have explored many controversial issue's like rape, murder etc is something that needs to be recognize that exists and not hide under the carpet and its the game industry that need to challenge its maybe exploring these serious issues and not to glorify it in its game play 

How Video Games helping Soldiers deal with the after effects of War

With the last chapter Hume's Strength of a Feeling, i read in ethics in the virtual world and how violence in these games such as Call of Duty can be seen as disgusting 

but i remember and wanted to show that how these games can have a positive impact on people lives and can actual help people deal with problems that continue to affect them

i remember reading an article in 2014 about how video games in particular war games where helping soldiers get over the trauma of war 

you can read the article at the link below

http://kotaku.com/how-video-games-are-helping-returning-soldiers-to-cope-157893

The program in a sense guide's players through different scenario's in real life in what soldiers have to deal with when they come back from war or battles and those physiological scars develop over time and playing the game help them recognize and deal with problems 

"The War Inside is one of our most powerful programs on PTSD," says Sloane. "I have received numerous comments from service members and their spouses that the program helped to save their marriages, family relationships and even their own lives. In some cases it broke down the barriers that kept service members from talking about their problems. In others it made them feel less isolated. Some have sought and benefited from professional help [as a result]."

You can see how a program like this will be a huge benefit as soldiers believe that the should be able to cope with these problems as they are soldiers but that can be further from the truth, the game show the players what different scenarios they could encounter on there return and how choosing certain paths and what consequences that could happen when they don't deal with the problems that they face.

I find this really insightful and show how this immersion into a world that can make soldier recognize problems that exists and helps the player to realize they might have the same problems and these issue's can't be ignore and they are not alone

The positive power of games 

Week 4: Hume's Strength of Feeling

For week 4 we had to read chapter 4 of ethics in the virtual world, chapter 3: Hume's Strength of Feeling
and answer the following questions?

What is 'sentimentalism'?

If we find something disgusting is that thing morally wrong?

Does engaging in ultra-violent video games degrade one's ability to show empathy?

So lets start What is Sentimentalism?

First i wanted to get the meaning of this world before answering this question Sentimentalism is the practice of being sentimental, or the tendency to base actions and reactions from emotions and feelings as opposed to reason

which i find interesting as with most games when especially it involves violence sometimes there is no reasoning for it and is purely based on emotion and feelings in fact in the book it gives an example of that someones favorite gaming activity is that his avatar would go around assaulting characters with a large pink dildo when i read this at first a slight chuckle emerged but then my moral compass kicked in and puzzlement and a bit of disgust actual  as i read further my mind had the exact same thoughts what if it was a woman or a child this was happening in the game too. 

So with that if we find something disgusting is that thing morally wrong? 

this again is a very interesting take as it can be a Yes or No answer for example i find mayonnaise on my sandwich disgusting but that does not mean it is morally wrong to put mayo on sandwiches its my preference and taste that is dictating that emotion. where as pedophilia or rape i find disgusting also and would find it hard to imagine that a majority consensus would not argue that fact and i would find it hard accept there ethics if they could. 

the chapter does highlight that we borrow the use of the word disgust when describing moral transgressions, but we also use that world to describe situations of things that we are bad as describe above which could be confusing so it depends in the context what you mean by something is disgusting 

For example a disgusting act would be like in the case of grand theft auto there is no reason but you can just steal a car and go on a killing spree knocking down pedestrians that cross your path just cause you can an action with no reason least there is an consequence to that in the game the police will eventually stop chase after you and force you to either invade them or get captured. 

i find the thought of that disgusting but people find that a fun game play device and don't have any disgust but if that happened in a real life situation how would that person feel? 

So this sets nicely to the third question Does engaging in ultra-violent video games degrade one's ability to show empathy?

According to Chapter 3 there is insufficient evidence to support any conclusion either way but it in our nature to be able to show empathy and there argument is that engaging in violent video games should not affect you because its not a real world and that people can identify the difference between virtual and reality but what if you are constantly playing games especially at a young age. check out the link below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26049333

That talks about how over exposure to 13-14 years old affected there empathy if they have continued to play for long periods
that it would be difficult for children to avoid those games such is the widespread nature of violence in games as said by the researcher Mirjana Bajovic and it would be unrealistic to expect parents to prevent their children from seeing them.

The study said: "Spending too much time within the virtual world of violence may prevent [gamers] from getting involved in different positive social experiences in real life, and in developing a positive sense of what is right and wrong."

Although i still think that it depends on the person who plays violent games and how it affects them, I do believe at an young age if you are only play these game and not interacting in an social sense on the outside world your empathy will be less developed when you get to adulthood compared with others and signs of trust and concern for others might also be affect as as stated they are just pixels on the screen so why would you care and if as a child that is all you do then you don't develop those skills at an the age you are suppose to. but i don't think playing these game will make you have violent tendencies at go up to people and assault them like you would do in Grand theft Auto there will still be the sense of right and wrong but at a less develop stage