Summary Report
Schulzke, M. 2010, ‘Defending the morality of violent video games’
Ethics and Information Technology Vol. 12 Issue 2, pp. 127-138
Schulzke’s essay argues that certain theoretical and empirical criticisms against violent video games are misguided, lack evidence and support rendering them ineffective. He claims that video games are defensible from perspective of philosophical theories such as Kantian, Aristotelian and utilitarian (p.127).
The author argues that in a philosophical perspective we need to focus on what occurs within the game such as actions and choices that a player chooses to take (p.136), whether this would be harming and/or killing an avatar within a game. He points out that as long as we treat each other with respect and do not intend to psychologically harm and mislead players to a non-consensual fight we are allowed to harm and kill avatars in game as they are superficial analogues to humans and merely inanimate objects (p.128-129).
Schulzke identifies that video games creates a training ground for players to practice and learn virtue by creating a moral dilemma scenario through simulations where a player has a choice to do good or evil (p.130).
The author continues to emphasise that on utilitarian grounds that video games provides billions of hours to millions of people of fun and entertainment evidently outweighing the potential harm it can cause. In addition to the positives, gaming fuels economy, promotes new technology and it’s documented that it improves visual perception, hand-eye coordination, space cognition and motor skills (p.130-131).
Schulzke addressed empirical claims that games have the capacity to train players on how to kill (p.131), to be less empathetic (p.132), and cause to perform violent acts (p.134). He says that these arguments are weak, lack evidence and without basis as actions performed in games requires a high similarity in the real world. Using a mouse to aim and shoot is completely different from holding a gun
Ethics and Information Technology Vol. 12 Issue 2, pp. 127-138
Schulzke’s essay argues that certain theoretical and empirical criticisms against violent video games are misguided, lack evidence and support rendering them ineffective. He claims that video games are defensible from perspective of philosophical theories such as Kantian, Aristotelian and utilitarian (p.127).
The author argues that in a philosophical perspective we need to focus on what occurs within the game such as actions and choices that a player chooses to take (p.136), whether this would be harming and/or killing an avatar within a game. He points out that as long as we treat each other with respect and do not intend to psychologically harm and mislead players to a non-consensual fight we are allowed to harm and kill avatars in game as they are superficial analogues to humans and merely inanimate objects (p.128-129).
Schulzke identifies that video games creates a training ground for players to practice and learn virtue by creating a moral dilemma scenario through simulations where a player has a choice to do good or evil (p.130).
The author continues to emphasise that on utilitarian grounds that video games provides billions of hours to millions of people of fun and entertainment evidently outweighing the potential harm it can cause. In addition to the positives, gaming fuels economy, promotes new technology and it’s documented that it improves visual perception, hand-eye coordination, space cognition and motor skills (p.130-131).
Schulzke addressed empirical claims that games have the capacity to train players on how to kill (p.131), to be less empathetic (p.132), and cause to perform violent acts (p.134). He says that these arguments are weak, lack evidence and without basis as actions performed in games requires a high similarity in the real world. Using a mouse to aim and shoot is completely different from holding a gun