Tuesday, September 6, 2016
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)
As Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown us, I feel that it is definitely possible to make a case against the selling of video games to the youth. Plato’s original argument against poetry partially originates in the idea that those portrayed in the stories are admirable. The flaw, however, in the Governor Schwarzenegger’s application of this argument then becomes that many of these video games do not portray their main characters, or any characters, as admirable at all. This is especially obvious in games such as Grand Theft Auto or even Far Cry, both of which include characters that are completely removed from reality. Of course, as video games progress away from fake characters and develop interactive environments where the characters are the players themselves, I believe that the argument shifts away from an argument against admirable heroes to an argument against representational narratives – which, although similar, is an entirely different argument. Of course, the debate boils down to the decision of whether the act of allowing children to purchase such video games is moral or not. Although one could argue that clearing video games of this singular argument is not sufficient to prove that they are moral, I believe that it’s easiest to argue that they should be moral until objected to again with a unique argument against them. Ultimately, whether or not it is moral to give teenagers video games seems to depend on the ability of someone to object to it – especially in our society where overexposure is often better than underexposure.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over explicit content in the hands of youths is one that has been argued over the course of centuries. In the Republic, Plato argues that the possibility of “young men taking such despicable material seriously” is too risky, since it will lead to these young men replicating the immoral actions of the characters seen in said media (Plato 82). In 2005, Arnold Schwarzenegger made a similar claim specifically in relation to violent video games (Nehamas). So, is the banning of violent video games for minors justified? In some cases, yes: At least some youths are bound to be affected by these video games in some way, whether it’s by developing slightly hostile tendencies or by acquiring possibly violent impulses. Therefore, a case can be made to prohibit certain video games. However, although a case can be made for prohibiting video games, it can be very difficult to prove factually. Despite the fact that there are tons of studies which give equal amounts of support for each side of the argument, there are even more complications and details behind this issue. For instance, certain age groups are less likely to succumb to such media (as compared to others) due to a better conceptual grasp on what is right and what is wrong and due to different levels of maturity. More specifically, a 16 year old will be much more capable of handling graphic imagery and mature concepts than a 6 year old. In other words, there are far more obstacles to giving a final answer this argument, like deciding what specific age groups can or cannot handle this type of media in general. Now, although part of me wants to say that graphic media (such as graphic video games) shouldn’t be taken away from minors, another part of me feels uncomfortable giving a 6 year old a copy of Grand Theft Auto (for example). Ultimately, no truly stable case can be made for either side of the argument, but it is safe to say that certain inappropriate forms of entertainment should be kept out of a minor’s hands just in case.
ReplyDeleteTo truly be able to determine the moral validity of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s arguments for restricting violent video games, it is necessary to understand the basis on which his arguments stands. His argument is very closely aligned to that of Plato’s, concerning the education of the guardians. The guardians are one of the three classes of people (warriors and laborers being the other two) within Plato’s “purely moral community,” whose job is to rule over the community and make all the big decisions. In context to this discussion it is worth noting two premises of Plato: morality is defined as “doing one’s own job” (433a) and that "the same thing clearly cannot act or be acted upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, in contrary ways" (436b).
ReplyDeleteReturning to the topic of education of the guardians, Plato brings up the notion of representational narrative, which is similar to the problem of violent video games. Representational narrative is basically a way in which the author inserts his own opinions into the characters that he writes about, which distorts the true personalities of the character. In relating to violent video games, it means that violence is not depicted in its entire truth. Since the youth are very impressionable, they will be corrupted by these untrue narratives and could be more prone to violence which would make them unfit for being guardians. This line of reasoning would make representational narrative and therefore video games immoral. However, there is another side to the argument. Guardians, by nature, must understand all problems with the community and even face the decision to go to war. Thus, they must learn how to deal with the violence of war in order to be effective leaders. Yet, war is scary especially for those that still have the innocence of youth. So, if they can be delivered a representational narrative of war in a controlled environment they can learn deal with the ugly aspects of their position as guardians. This would make representational narrative moral since it allows guardians to properly do their job. This, however, introduces a discrepancy in the morality of representational narratives and video games as they cannot be both immoral and moral. In conclusion, one cannot use Plato’s moral framework to properly inspect Arnold Schwarzenegger’s argument.
The argument against the use of violent video games centers not on the quality of their plot or graphics, but rather on the potential pernicious effects they may have on those who play them. Similarly to Schwarzenegger, most of those who are concerned focus specifically on the effects of violent games on young children and teenagers, but the same concerns are valid, possibly to a lesser extent, regarding adults as well. The main question is whether portrayal of violence on-screen tends to make people more violent (or worse in some other way) in real life. This may be answered fairly easily by looking back in history for other portrayals of violence and their effects. In particular, the advertisements that glorified war that were popular before both the American Civil War and the First World War may be compared to the video games of today. They glorified violence and made the reader (the player, in today's world) feel stronger and more worthy than their purported enemies. The result of these advertisements was the military enlistment of record numbers of the youth that Plato was concerned about when he wrote the Republic. Unprecedented amounts of violence, death and destruction followed. While the consequences were partially caused by new technologies and the contemporary sociopolitical environments in both cases, the enthusiasm for violence that was seen in the enlisted was also necessarily a major factor, since it was the enlisted themselves who physically caused the devastation in both wars. Plato writes: "That’s why we must put an end to stories of this nature: if we don’t, they will engender in the young men of our community a casual attitude towards badness" (86). In the case of the war advertisements that proliferated before the start of each conflict, Plato's fears were proven to be valid, at a great cost to human life and property.
ReplyDelete(continues into the next post)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteHaving established the fact that the glorification of war and violence has played a part in causing wars of unprecedented violence in the past, we must now turn to the question of whether violent video games glorify the violence for which they are known. It is challenging to argue that they do not. While games may not explicitly state that violence is good or a positive force, it is an implicit assumption that in order to succeed in a game one must be violent. To get to a certain objective, one must, for example, kill a certain number of "bad guys" to earn points or be able to travel to a given location within the game. The condoning of violence has less to do with the specific objective or with what the in-game enemies did to earn such a label and more to do with how easy it is to kill someone in a game. There are no moral qualms about ending the life of a unique individual; the depiction of their death usually ends with the lifeless body dropping and then remaining in place or disappearing- there are no smells, sounds, or sights coming from the dead. Beyond making killing literally as easy as pressing a button on the game controller, many games give bonuses for a large number of consecutive kills. We may compare this attitude to the perspective of many anti-war movies, such as Letters from Iwo Jima or The Deer Hunter, where human life is presented as fragile and valuable, to put the games' violence in perspective. Taking into account that most people usually agree with the message of such movies, video games may be seen as spreading almost extremist messages filled with perverse ideas.
While there may not yet be any definitive evidence on the negative effects of games on today's society, it is hard to not be concerned when looking at the increase in gun violence and racial tensions. Remembering the lessons of history, it is not hard to step into the shoes of Plato and fear what the next generation of video-game-playing kids will do when they reach adulthood. Of course, this argument spreads beyond games to potentially include action movies and other media, but this does not mean that the concern about the violence of video games is any less-valid. Therefore, it must be concluded that Schwarzenegger's actions in protecting the nation from future violence, even if unconstitutional, were, in fact, morally justified. It can be said that they were maybe even logical...
I am willing to play the devil’s advocate here and say that there can be reasoning for allowing video games of violent natures to be given to the youth. Plato ends up arguing that through a misuse of representational narrative that the narrator is lying and as such is harming children and the youth. But we could also say that there is an important lesson to be made for the children in terms of exaggerating and bending the truth. It could very well help them to see through illusions and see the world for what it is, but we must explicitly tell them so. In most video games, the amount of violence is usually increased and dramatized more than it is. Sure there are some that attempt to make it more realistic, such as ARMA, and I feel as if those shouldn’t be censored since they attempt to portray violence more realistically. And the biggest thing about Plato’s argument is that the children are in a sense, pure, and they must have as little negative influence to retain their beneficial characteristics when they grow up. How can this apply to video games? So many of them don’t portray violence, but in this society it is all too prevalent. More often than not we are exposed to violence at a younger and younger age through the world around us and video games may as well reflect that growing trend. And if such a thing is the case, then it is not only video games that should be considered for censorship, but every form of media should have a consideration for censorship for children.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo kind of add on to Rishi's point of youth's access to violent video games is a benefit, I believe it can be justified with certain conditions. At the moment though, the types of video games that are fed to the youth are too unrealistic and graphic for the younger generation to learn from. I believe that games should not be banned, but instead restricted by modifiers that help limit what can be portrayed within the game. Games today such as Call of Duty(military shooter) or Mortal Kombat(fighting) show graphic violence, reckless actions, and colorful language. So instead of having these insane components in video games, there should be a limit on what companies can advertise and put into a game for the younger generation before they reach a proper age. Things such as restricting parts of the game or disabling explicit language may go long ways to help prevent children from learning the wrong things. Rishi's point of that video game's exaggeration helps the youth learn about the illusions of the world I do feel is incorrect. With the help of limiting the excessive and colorful things of video games and bringing out the more realistic side of war or combat will educate the youth about the real world in a better fashion.
Delete