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.