Are some forms of fiction (games) unimaginable for some individuals to engage with?
Is it right to prohibit certain acts in the virtual space? What might those acts be and under what circumstances?
So lets attack the first question are there some form of fiction (games) unimaginable for some individuals to engage with?
So lets attack the first question are there some form of fiction (games) unimaginable for some individuals to engage with?
first of all lets see what are the biggest selling games on the market in the UK by unit sales with Fallout 4 (PS4) at 614,128 and Call of Duty: Black Op 3 (PS4) at 871, 521 and then you have Grand Theft Auto 5 (PS4) at 492,457 this is not counting xbox sales or online purchases but as you can see out except for Fifa 2016 all the games on the list you can check out on the link below:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/274184/sales-of-top-selling-console-games-at-retail-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
http://www.statista.com/statistics/274184/sales-of-top-selling-console-games-at-retail-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
the games involve you could say questionable content in the eyes people on the outside and to further highlight this in the chapter the author points to to questionable content in the games Call of duty: Modern Warfare 2 has now become infamous due to its civilian massacre scene while Grand Theft Auto IV courts regular controversy but in this version as it permits the players character to have sex with prostitutes before mugging them or killing them for the money.
There is also the issue that these games although age restricted are widely and easy available for a larger demographic than just over 18's. why is that? that can be discussed further on a later post but for now with access to this material easily available.
So in the context of video games can you judge a legitimate action or gaming strategy as morally good or morally bad that is based on someone that brutalize a stranger to the point of death in Man hunter 2 or when one sexually assaults and defeats a female opponent in Battle Raper are these morally bad things ok to engage in? then in the opposite end of the spectrum in the game Bioshock if you chose not to harvest the little sisters thats to kill little mutant children is this seen as a morally commendable act?
In further chapters of the book we need to explore moral theories that are used in our non gaming activities can they be legimately applied to our gaming worlds
Hume's Sentimentalism, Kant's deontological approach and the consequentialism characteristic of utilitarianism and so on
but lets not look at this and answer the question as it is do you think its unimaginable for some to engage with that. as in most of these games the player is regular interacting with subject matter that is seen as taboo like murder, assault (sexual and physical) torture etc are classed as symbolic taboo activities (STA'S) as describe in the book
one of the reasons / excuses that is coming using these STA's in these game worlds is that its just a game it's a virtual world that does not exist so in a sense this is very much a yes or no situation answering this question
for the yes side it can be seen
for the no a recent article found here below
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/study-finds-no-evidence-violent-video-games-make-children-aggres/
states that it could find no evidence that violent video games affect and it was more the amount of time they spend playing games than the actual content that was the issue
Dr Andy Przybylski, from Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute, the lead author, was quoted saying
“Some are of the position that there is no reason to believe that video games are any different from any other kind of media and then there are those who are very concerned,”
But for the no side they have a equally compelling argument and in fact an article released last year stated the the opposite of the findings by Dr Przybylski where they describe violent video games has a risk factor for increased aggression to view the article have a look a the link below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-finds-that-violent-video-games-may-be-linked-to-aggressive-behaviour-10458614.html
although the say the exposure to games is a risk factor to increased aggression they can't rule that its from games such as the Call of Duty franchise or Grand Theft Auto franchise.
Dr Mark Appelbaum who chaired the APA task force is quoted in saying
"Scientists have investigated the use of violent video games for more than two decades but to date, there is very limited research addressing whether violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence.
"However, the link between violence in video games and increased aggression in players is one of the most studied and best established in the field.
So Although they can't say for definite that games can cause violence it you can not say for 100% that there is not a risk or a risk factor of over exposure to violence that this won't increase aggression.
plus another argument is that should children be playing games that involve death and killing in the first place just like in other media they are restricted to what they are allowed to see and the fact they have not got a full understanding of ethics and moral code to work from and should we let children access to games that engage you to command your avatar to hurt, kill or steal.
So to answer the second question Is it right to prohibit certain acts in the virtual space? What might those acts be and under what circumstances?
a phrase that is far often used to describe certain acts in games that i find frustrating is "its just a game" or its just pixels and doesn't exist yes that is true but you can not use that to justify violence and gory you put into a game their must be a justification for it.
in the book it takes a game of chess and then adds certain
but is it right to prohibit certain acts currently in the UK murder and assault is considered part of the game while pedophilia, rape and bestiality are consider an no go in games or are out right banned, all though there is a part of me that agrees with that struggles to argue why this while murder and assault is widely accepted as musts in a game. all though a part of me believe that those acts should not be performed on a virtual level but if violence and murder is justified in that it seen to a replacement to the physical action then could that not be implied to those conditions as well something i can't argue with but my ethics and moral's that i have do have problems with it.
So right now i believe that this should still be the case but why do we think murder is ok in games then?
There is also the issue that these games although age restricted are widely and easy available for a larger demographic than just over 18's. why is that? that can be discussed further on a later post but for now with access to this material easily available.
So in the context of video games can you judge a legitimate action or gaming strategy as morally good or morally bad that is based on someone that brutalize a stranger to the point of death in Man hunter 2 or when one sexually assaults and defeats a female opponent in Battle Raper are these morally bad things ok to engage in? then in the opposite end of the spectrum in the game Bioshock if you chose not to harvest the little sisters thats to kill little mutant children is this seen as a morally commendable act?
In further chapters of the book we need to explore moral theories that are used in our non gaming activities can they be legimately applied to our gaming worlds
Hume's Sentimentalism, Kant's deontological approach and the consequentialism characteristic of utilitarianism and so on
but lets not look at this and answer the question as it is do you think its unimaginable for some to engage with that. as in most of these games the player is regular interacting with subject matter that is seen as taboo like murder, assault (sexual and physical) torture etc are classed as symbolic taboo activities (STA'S) as describe in the book
one of the reasons / excuses that is coming using these STA's in these game worlds is that its just a game it's a virtual world that does not exist so in a sense this is very much a yes or no situation answering this question
for the yes side it can be seen
for the no a recent article found here below
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/study-finds-no-evidence-violent-video-games-make-children-aggres/
states that it could find no evidence that violent video games affect and it was more the amount of time they spend playing games than the actual content that was the issue
Dr Andy Przybylski, from Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute, the lead author, was quoted saying
“Some are of the position that there is no reason to believe that video games are any different from any other kind of media and then there are those who are very concerned,”
But for the no side they have a equally compelling argument and in fact an article released last year stated the the opposite of the findings by Dr Przybylski where they describe violent video games has a risk factor for increased aggression to view the article have a look a the link below:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-finds-that-violent-video-games-may-be-linked-to-aggressive-behaviour-10458614.html
although the say the exposure to games is a risk factor to increased aggression they can't rule that its from games such as the Call of Duty franchise or Grand Theft Auto franchise.
Dr Mark Appelbaum who chaired the APA task force is quoted in saying
"Scientists have investigated the use of violent video games for more than two decades but to date, there is very limited research addressing whether violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence.
"However, the link between violence in video games and increased aggression in players is one of the most studied and best established in the field.
So Although they can't say for definite that games can cause violence it you can not say for 100% that there is not a risk or a risk factor of over exposure to violence that this won't increase aggression.
plus another argument is that should children be playing games that involve death and killing in the first place just like in other media they are restricted to what they are allowed to see and the fact they have not got a full understanding of ethics and moral code to work from and should we let children access to games that engage you to command your avatar to hurt, kill or steal.
So to answer the second question Is it right to prohibit certain acts in the virtual space? What might those acts be and under what circumstances?
a phrase that is far often used to describe certain acts in games that i find frustrating is "its just a game" or its just pixels and doesn't exist yes that is true but you can not use that to justify violence and gory you put into a game their must be a justification for it.
in the book it takes a game of chess and then adds certain
but is it right to prohibit certain acts currently in the UK murder and assault is considered part of the game while pedophilia, rape and bestiality are consider an no go in games or are out right banned, all though there is a part of me that agrees with that struggles to argue why this while murder and assault is widely accepted as musts in a game. all though a part of me believe that those acts should not be performed on a virtual level but if violence and murder is justified in that it seen to a replacement to the physical action then could that not be implied to those conditions as well something i can't argue with but my ethics and moral's that i have do have problems with it.
So right now i believe that this should still be the case but why do we think murder is ok in games then?
No comments:
Post a Comment