skip to main content
article

Defending the morality of violent video games

Published:01 June 2010Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The effect of violent video games is among the most widely discussed topics in media studies, and for good reason. These games are immensely popular, but many seem morally objectionable. Critics attack them for a number of reasons ranging from their capacity to teach players weapons skills to their ability to directly cause violent actions. This essay shows that many of these criticisms are misguided. Theoretical and empirical arguments against violent video games often suffer from a number of significant shortcomings that make them ineffective. This essay argues that video games are defensible from the perspective of Kantian, Aristotelian, and utilitarian moral theories.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Aristotle, (1999). Nicomachean ethics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Associated Press. (2001). Ashcroft attacks video violence. July 26 http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/04/42856, Accessed October 1, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Balkin, J. (2004). Virtual liberty: freedom to design and freedom to play in virtual worlds. Virginia law review, 90(8), 2043-2098.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartholow, B., Bushman, B., & Sestir, M. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 532-539.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm, Accessed September 20, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 489-496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers, P. (2009). Inside the mind of a teen killer. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chappell, D., Eatough, V., Davies, M. N. O., & Griffiths, M. (2006). EverQuest--It's Just a Computer Game Right? An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Online Gaming Addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4(3), 205-216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cogburn, J., & Silcox, M. (2009). Philosophy through video games. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlop, J. (2009). The US video game industry: Analyzing representation of gender and race. In C. S. A. Panayiotis Zaphiris (Ed.), Cross-disciplinary advances in human computer interaction: User modeling, social computing, and adaptive interfaces. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Durkin, K., & Barber, B. (2002). Not so doomed: Computer game play and positive adolescent development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(4), 373-392.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ferguson, C. (2007a). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 470-482.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferguson, C. (2007b). The good, the bad and the ugly: A metaanalytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 78(4), 309-316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleming, M. J., & Rick Wood, D. J. (2001). Effects of violent versus nonviolent video games on children's arousal, aggressive mood, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(10), 2047-2071.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Funk, J., Buchman, D., Jenks, J., & Bechtoldt, H. (2003). Playing violent video games, desensitization, and moral evaluation in children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 413-436.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Galloway, A. (2004). Social realism in gaming. Game Studies, 4(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbs, N., & Timothy Roche. (1999). The columbine tapes: The columbine tapes. Time Magazine.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, D. (2004). Communication, power, and media. New York: Nova Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological Science, 18(1), 88-94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action against TV, movie & video game violence. New York: Crown.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Hourigan, B. (2008). The moral code of grand theft auto IV. http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1323/the-moral-code-ofgrand-theft-auto-iv/pg/26, Accessed October 10, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jansz, J. (2006). The emotional appeal of violent video games for adolescent males. Communication Theory, 15(3), 219-241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jilted Woman 'Murdered Avatar' (2008) October 2. Sky News.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Johansson, M. (2009). Why unreal punishment in response to unreal crimes might actually be a really good thing. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(1), 71-79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Johnson, K. (2006) Police Tie Jump in Crime to Juveniles. USA Today, July 13, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07- 12-juveniles-cover_x.htm, Accessed January 2, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kant, I. (1999). Groundwork on the metaphysics of morals. In M. J. Gregor (Ed.), Practical philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Klastrup, L. (2009). The worldness of everquest: Exploring a 21st century fiction. Game Studies, 9(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The surprising truth about violent video games and what parents can do. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Langman, P. (2009). Why kids kill: Inside the minds of school shooters. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Leonard, D. (2007). Unsettling the military entertainment complex: Video games and a pedagogy of peace. SIMILE: Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, 4(4), 1-8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, M. (2008). Grand theft auto series has sold 66 million units to date. Gamesindustry.biz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Mathiak, K., & Weber, R. (2006). Toward brain correlates of natural behavior: fMRI during violent video games. Human Brain Mapping, 27(12), 948-956.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. McCormick, M. (2001). Is it wrong to play violent video games? Ethics and Information Technology, 3(4), 277-287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Miller, K. (2008). The accidental carjack: Ethnography, gameworld tourism, and grand theft auto. Game Studies, 8(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman, J. (2004). Videogames. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ove, T. (2009) Crime drop a pleasant surprise: First half of '09 bucks trend of it usually increasing during a recession. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , December 26. http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09360/ 1023714-53.stm, Accessed January 2, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynolds, R. (2002). Playing a "good'' game: A philosophical approach to understanding the morality of games. Paper presented at the International Game Developers Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosser, J. C. J., Lynch, P. J., Cuddihy, L., Gentile, D. A., Klonsky, J., & Merrell, R. (2007). The impact of video games on training surgeons in the 21st century. Archives of Surgery, 142(2), 181-186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Sakamoto, A. (2000). Video games and violence - controversy and research in Japan. In C. V. F. U. Carlsson (Ed.), Children and media violence yearbook 2000, Children in the new media landscape. Goteborg: UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Schulzke, M. (2009). Moral decision making in fallout. Game Studies, 9(2), http://gamestudies.org/0902/articles/schulzke, Accessed November 1, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon, B., Kelly Boudreau, & Mark Silverman. (2009). Two players: biography and 'played sociality' in EverQuest. Game Studies, 9(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Singer, P. (2007). Video Crime Peril vs. Virtual Pedophilia. The Japan Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Tavinor, G. (2009). BioShock and the art of rapture. Philosophy and Literature, 33(1), 91-106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds: Exploring online game culture. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Waddington, D. I. (2007). Locating the wrongness of ultraviolent video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(2), 121-128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Wolfendale, J. (2007). My Avatar, My Self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(2), 111-119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Wonderly, M. (2007). A human approach to assessing the moral significance of ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(1), 1-10. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Defending the morality of violent video games

          Recommendations

          Reviews

          G. Smith

          Schulzke reviews major perspectives-Kantian, Aristotelian, and utilitarian moral theories-to argue that criticism of violent video games is misguided. Schulzke contends that these moral theories do not support the negative appraisal of violent video games. He points out that a body of evidence is emerging that demonstrates just the opposite: violent games are a positive outlet. "Violent games are not immoral on Kantian, Aristotelian, or utilitarian grounds, except in some limited circumstances," which he demonstrates. Kant's dictum to "act in accordance with a maxim that can at the same time make itself a universal law" is instructive in that Kant's principle cannot realistically be applied to virtual entities. According to Schulzke, Aristotle thought "games [were] good or bad to the extent that they provide[d] players with meaningful moral simulations that [could] improve their decision making" or help them learn virtue. Likewise, the utilitarian can argue persuasively that games elicit pleasure. Schulzke is forced to weaken his conclusion in favor of arguing only for the "moral status of video games." He had hoped to show how critiques of violent video games are misplaced. In the second part of the essay, he considers "empirical work critical of violent games." Schulzke is more convincing here since there is no causal relationship between violent games and antisocial behavior. Online Computing Reviews Service

          Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

          Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access