Cortez1

Joseph Cortez
CST 300 Writing Lab
October 18, 2016

A Choice of Morality and Violence in a Virtual World

The controversy of violence in video games has been debated for decades. With video

games containing in depth narrative stories coupled with extreme violence nowadays, consumers

are now given the choice to commit heinous acts or to act compassionately. There is the

argument that this choice of violence is negatively affecting our psyche and also just the opposite

that these choices contain a positive influence on the human psyche not offered in the real world.

There are connections to ethical frameworks regarding the effects on the human psyche from

immoral acts and violence in videogames that have been argued over the past three decades by

stakeholders of the issue.

Video game moral choices and violence can date back to the early time of their public

inception in the 1970’s. Morality can be defined as “beliefs about what is right behavior and

what is wrong behavior” (Morality, n.d., para. 1). The essential idea that morality is a belief

lends to the discussion on evaluating what is and what is not moral. What may be moral to one

may be immoral to another. Violence, however, has a more conclusive definition. It can be

defined as “the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc.” (Violence, n.d.,

para 1).

The first video game to induce a public discussion regarding this ethical argument was

Death Race by Exidy. As games can be constructs of the culture of the time, this game was

loosely based on the movie, Death Race 2000. This movie which depicts the car as a tool of

violence. During this time there was no rating system for video games and the moral spectators

saw their children playing this game in arcades. According to Kocurek (as cited in Exidy
 Cortez2

introduces: Death Race 98, 1976), the marketing department for Exidy marketed the game as

“The first game to require the player to ‘get involved’ in whatever way he wants” (2012, p. 1).

This shows the moral choice that players could choose in this game. In the game, players should

run over as many stick figure targets called “gremlins” that they can. Once hit, the “gremlins”

would turn into cross shaped tombstones which then would become obstacles to the player. The

association of the game with the violent movie, Death Race 2000 may have spurred the

controversy. Death Race was not the only video game on the market. Other games at the time

involved destroying tanks, simulated air combat, and other war games among others. What made

this game different was the overt choice of simulated violent chaos not associated with the

paradigms of accepted violence in war. Moral advocates and media decided to create a debate

against the game and future games like it (Kocurek, 2012).

The use of storytelling in the recent generation of video games has given rise to giving

players a choice on making moral decisions within the game. With games containing narratives,

a player’s direct choice can lead to different outcomes in the story. In certain games, such as

Grand Theft Auto V, players must perform heinous acts in order to move the story along. Such

acts include murder, torture, steal, and engage in illicit sexual acts. All of these acts reward the

gamer and some are necessary (Merz 2014).

The major stakeholders for the issue of the effects of morality and violence in video

games are governments, the video game industry, video game consumers, parents of young

gamers, and religious organizations. The government has a social obligation to act under the will

of the people and to serve their best interests. Many times upholding these obligations can lead to

unruly legislation which may in fact be unconstitutional. This became apparent in a case brought

to the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. The case was American Amusement
 Cortez3

Machine Association, v. Teri Kendrick (2001). In this case, the American Amusement Machine

Association sought to reverse an ordinance in Indianapolis that forbid any business with five or

more video game machines to allow an unaccompanied minor to play a machine which was

deemed harmful to minors. It was concluded that the ordinance violated individual’s freedom of

expression and threw it out (American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, 2001). The

video game industry has a stake as they are the creators of the products in question and their

revenue stream is dependent on the success of such games. The video game consumers have a

stake in that they are the ones affected by this moral decision and whether it has any effect on

their psyche. Parents of youth gamers have a stake as they are concerned for the well-being of

their children. Religious organizations have a stake as they feel they have an obligation to uphold

moralistic values within society.

There are three main positions that these stakeholders can take regarding this ethical

issue. They can hold onto the position that video games with immoral acts and violence should

be banned altogether. Another alternative to this position would be that these type of games

should be censored. A final option would be to identify with the position that video games

should not be banned or censored as they are a form of freedom of expression. Arguments to the

pros and cons of each of these positions can be made. The ethical frameworks surrounding these

arguments are utilitarianism, ethical egoism, divine command theory, and virtue ethics. Some of

these ethical framework’s origins date back to ancient civilizations, and others have been brought

forth through a more modern study of ethics.

There are some who would say that video games with immoral choices and violence

should be banned. Stakeholders who support this notion can be a part of governments. Bans on

violent video games have constantly been brought up within governments ever since the debate
 Cortez4

began in the 1970’s. One such example of this was in 2011 when the Supreme Court prohibited a

California law that banned the sale of violent video games to youth. The Supreme Court made

this ruling on the basis of First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech (Liptak, 2011).

China is an example of a government that has outright banned violent video games. In 2000 they

banned gaming consoles altogether, claiming that they had a negative effect on the development

of children. This ban was lifted in 2014 but met with stringent censorship (Makuch, 2014). The

assumptions that lead to this position are that violent and immoral video games have a negative

influence on the human psyche and lead to more violence and immoral behavior within society.

The pros of this position are that if there really is a correlation between violence in video games

and the human psyche, then there would be less violence in our communities. With less violence

comes a more prosperous society. The cons regarding this position are that a ban on an

expressive form of media limits the rights of citizens to create and obtain such media. This could

allow governments to further limit the rights of their citizens. An ethical framework that

underlies this position is virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics can trace its beginnings to Confucius and Plato. Confucius predated Plato in

East Asia at around 500 B.C. He sought to show that it was important to act virtuously as a

whole person and throughout one’s life (Bonde et al., 2013). Plato described the virtues of a

virtuous individual. He also said that it is the responsibility of adults to instill virtues in children

(Fieser, 2013). According to Fieser (2013), “[v]irtue ethics, however, places less emphasis on

learning rules, and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character, such

as benevolence. Once I've acquired benevolence, for example, I will then habitually act in a

benevolent manner” (para. 14). Those in government who seek to ban violent and immoral video

games such as China use virtue ethics as a way of protecting young and keeping what they feel to
 Cortez5

be a virtuous society. To them the idea of creating heinous acts, virtual or real, is a rejection of

upholding virtue ethics.

Another position on the issue is to censor video games with immoral choices and

violence. Stakeholders who support this position are governments, parents of youth gamers, and

religious organizations. The assumptions for this position are that violent and immoral video

games have a negative influence on developing children and mentally susceptible individuals.

Governments have tried and succeeded at taking this position. After China lifted its ban on

consoles, it immediately set into place censorship rules on the types of video games that would

not be allowed to be sold in the country. According to Makuch (2014), games with “Anything

that instigates racial/ethnic hatred, or harms ethnic traditions and cultures” and “Anything that

promotes or incites obscenity, drug use, violence, or gambling” cannot be sold in the country

(para. 2). Parents provide censorship on a micro scale by disallowing their children to play such

games. Religious organizations have a self-imposed obligation to be stewards of upholding

morality within society. It is this obligation that leads some religious organization to take this

position on censorship of violent and immoral video games. According to the U.S. Catholic

Bishops (1994), “(t)he celebration of violence in much of our media, music and even video

games is poisoning our children (para. 1). The pros of this argument are if there is a correlation

between such games and the development of children and the mentally susceptible psyche, then

there would be less violence and immorality in the world. Legislators have argued that certain

mass shootings such as the school shooting in Columbine would not have happened if the

influence of video games did not exist (Jaccarino, 2013). The cons of this position are there may

be an infringement on first amendment rights and freedom of expression. The divine command

theory is an ethical framework that underlies this position.

 Cortez6

The divine command theory’s inceptions lie within religion. William of Ockham was a

Christian philosopher in the 13th century whose ideals regarding this framework inspired others

after him to expand on its approach (Bonde et al., 2013). Through this framework it is God’s will

that moral principles exist and these moral principles have been passed on to people through

commandments laid out by religion or instinctual moral intuition (Fieser, n.d.). Religious

organizations who seek to censor violent and immoral video games adhere to this framework as

it gives credence that God has given them moral authority to act for him and protect his people

against immorality.

Video games with immoral choices and violence are an art form that should be allowed

their freedom of expression is one more position on the issue. Stakeholders who may support this

position are governments, the video game industry, and video game consumers. The assumptions

regarding this position are that violent and immoral video games have no influence or the human

psyche or alternatively may even have a positive influence on the human psyche. Also parents,

not government, should be responsible for censorship. Interestingly enough as there are forces

within government that are trying to limit accessibility to violent and immoral video games, the

United States Supreme Court is a government agency which has upheld the opposite viewpoint.

As discussed earlier, several cases have come to the Supreme Court, such as American

Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, (2001), and the court upheld that censorship and

banning of violent and immoral video games violates our First Amendment rights. The video

game industries stake in the position is a matter of potential lost revenue. According to Sinclair

(2013), it can be observed that although mature rated games share a smaller proportion of the

total spectrum of rated games their revenue stream exceeds this by over double. In fact, the trend

of sales within the industry for mature rated games increased by 10% between 2005 and 2011 as
 Cortez7

shown from the following chart. (Sinclair, 2013).

Video game consumers stake on this position is one in which they are fighting for the right to be

able to have access to content as being part of their First Amendment rights. The pros regarding

this are that first amendment rights may not be violated. The cons for this position are that

violent video games may have a negative effect on individuals and therefore lead to more

violence. Utilitarianism and ethical egoism are frameworks that underlie this position.

Utilitarianism was first thought up by Jeremy Bentham. In his theory for this framework,

Bentham declared that the consequences of actions performed be tallied and then an action can

be determined to be morally right or wrong on a case by case basis. He also declared that we sum

the amount of pleasure or discomfort that results from an action to determine if it is morally right

(Fieser, n.d.). It was then revised by Bentham’s student, John Stuart Mill. Instead of using the

materialist idea of pleasure as the standard for good, Mill changed it to the more subjective

concept of happiness (Bonde et al, 2013). In essence the framework of utilitarianism seeks to

find what is right by choosing the action that provides the most amount of good while also

providing the least amount of bad. The framework assumes that both good and bad result from
 Cortez8

actions. Governments, would argue that they take a utilitarian view as they are trying to view all

sides of the argument as can be seen in the listed Supreme Court cases and know that their

decisions would have negative outcomes for some people and ideas.

Rather than focusing on what is most right for the masses, ethical egoism focuses of what

is most right for the self. It was first discussed by Thomas Hobbes in the 16th century. According

to Bonde et al. (2013), Ayn Rand expanded on the framework in her book The Virtue of

Selfishness. In this book she “argues that self-interest is a prerequisite to self-respect and to the

respect for others” (Bonde et al., 2013, para. 8). Video game consumers would take this

framework for their argument that video games with immoral choices and violence are an art

form that should be allowed their freedom of expression. It is in the self-interest of the consumer

to have access to these games; thus giving themselves pleasure and happiness.

Based on research and personal opinion, immoral and violent video games have no

negative impact on the human psyche and may actually have a positive impact. An alignment can

be made through this assumption with the stakeholders of governments, the video game industry,

and video game consumers. Based on the Supreme Court rulings stated before, a congruent

feeling regarding this personal position and that of our chief justices can be shown. Had the

Supreme Court aligned itself in believing that violent and immoral video games have a

detrimental impact to the human psyche, they may have acted differently. The video game

industry and video game consumers have argued, with a bias of course, that violent video games

do not have a negative impact on the human psyche.

Furthermore, through this assumption it can be inferred that video games with immoral

choices and violence should not be censored or banned. We must, as a society that claims to

embrace its freedoms, clamor to rebuke any initiatives that claim to suppress this art form.
 Cortez9

Numerous studies have been done that show a lack of a correlation between violent, immoral

video games and a negative impact on the human psyche. According to a study conducted by

DeCamp (2015), there was no causal relation between violent video games and real world

violence. In this study 6,567 8th grade students in the state of Deleware were surveyed about

playing violent video games and other possible contributing factors that would lead to violent

behavior such as hitting or taking a weapon to school. No substantial correlations could be

found; however, it was noted that there were other significant factors such as seeing or hearing

real world violence in their home and sensation seeking that led to violent behavior. The results

of the study are shown below (DeCamp, 2015).

 Cortez10

Another study by Markey, Markey, & French (2014) was conducted to determine if a

relation existed between violent video game sales and real-world violence in the United States.

This study found no evidence of a relation existing and even found that there was a relation that

the sale of violent video games coincided with a decrease in real-world violence. A possible

explanationsfor this is playing violent video games may act as a cartharsis on someone who my

commit a crime. In effect, instead of letting out their anger on the real-world, violent individuals

let out their anger in the virtual world. Another explanation is that violent individuals may be

drawn to violent video games. When these games are released, instead of being out comitting

crimes, these individuals are out of the streets and inside playing video games (Markey, Markey,

& French, 2014).

According to Donovan (2014), one final explanation for this assumption can be found in

a study conducted by Matthew Grizzard, PhD, assistant professor in the University at Buffalo

Department of Communication. Donovan (2014) quoted Grizzard:

“Rather than leading players to become less moral,” Grizzard says, “this research

suggests that violent video-game play may actually lead to increased moral sensitivity.

This may, as it does in real life, provoke players to engage in voluntary behavior that
 Cortez11

benefits others.” (para. 3)

According to Donovan (2014), when players conducted immoral choices in the virtual world

they experience guilt that makes them more sensitive to the ethical issues they defiled in the

game. When the studies of Grizzard and Markey, Markey, & French are analyzed together, one

can correlate that violent video games may actually benefit society in reducing violence in the

real world.

No stance on an issue is without bias. There is a national bias that exists for this

argument. The United States is inherintly described as a country that is for the freedoms of its

people. Conversely China, a country that has outright banned violent and immoral video games,

sacrifices these freedoms for the common good of its citizens. Who is morally right on the issue

is a debate for the world stage. The fact that these studies were conducted in the United States

may lend to this national bias of wanting our country to be a nation of freedoms. As a personal

bias, being a gamer since childhood and having played violent video games lends one to side

with the assumption of violent games not having a negative impact on the human psyche. After

all, don’t we all feel that we have have committed to an action that is not negatively affecting our

own psyche?

Of course concessions to the strengths of the opposing positions can be made with insight

into their strengths, and the limitations and potential negative outcomes of the personal

perspective. One significant strength of banning or censoring immoral and violent video games is

that although there may not be solid proof of these games having a negative impact on children, a

moral dilemma of should innocent minds be exposed to heinous acts early in life exists. If there

was a censorship of these games, children would not be exposed to these immoral acts regardless

of a parent lacking the monitoring skills they should be providing their child. A limitation of the
 Cortez12

assumption for allowing violent and heinous acts to exist in video games is that although studies

may show no correlation between violent acts and violent games, we can never be certain what

influence they may have had on violent individuals unless we were able to read their thoughts. A

potential negative outcome for the recommendation of disallowing the banning and censorship of

violent and immoral video games is if a violent video game just influenced one person to commit

a violent or homicidal act, then that act would not have been committed as the perpetrator would

never had access to this influence.

Despite these concessions, a rational view that immoral and violent video games should

not be censored or banned can be upheld as they do not have a significant impact on the human

psyche and may even positively affect it. Video games are a form of art that under the First

Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States should be allowed their expression.

Although political leaders and religious organizations clamor to say that violent and immoral

games have a negative effect on the human psyche, numerous scientific studies have shown that

no such correlation exists. Unexpectedly the reverse has been shown in these studies; violent and

immoral video games has a positive effect on the human psyche thus benefitting society. It is

clear the debate of this issue is not over as biases exist on both sides of the argument, and the

ethical frameworks lend clout to these individuals to keep arguing their stance on this

controversial issue.
 Cortez13

References

American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, No. 00–3643, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS

4371 (7th Cir. Mar. 23, 2001),

Bonde et al. (2013, May). A framework for making ethical decisions. Brown University.

Retrieved from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-

studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

DeCamp, W. (2015). Impersonal agencies of communication: Comparing the effects of video

games and other risk factors on violence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4, 296-

304. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000037

Donovan, P. (2014, June 26). ‘Bad’ video game behavior increases players’ moral sensitivity.

News Center University at Buffalo. Retrieved from http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases

/2014/06/037.html

Feiser, J. (n.d.). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/#SSH2c.i

Jaccarino, M. (2013, September 12). ‘Training simulation:’ Mass killers often share obsession

with violent video games. Fox News. Retrieved from

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/12/training-simulation-mass-killers-often-share-

obsession-with-violent-video-games.html

Kocurek, C. (2012, September). The agony and the exidy: A history of video game violence and

the legacy of Death Race. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 12(1).

Retrieved from http://gamestudies.org/1201/articles/carly_kocurek

Liptak, A. (2011, June 27). Justices reject ban on violent video games for children. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html

 Cortez14

Makuch, E. (2014, April 23). China reveals censorship rules for console games – Nothing that

promotes drug use or violence will be allowed. Gamespot. Retrieved from

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/china-reveals-censorship-rules-for-console-games-

nothing-that-promotes-drug-use-or-violence-will-be-allowed/1100-6419151/

Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & French, J. E. (2014, August 18). Violent Video Games and

Real-World Violence: Rhetoric Versus Data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture.

Advance online publication. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000030

Merz, A. (2014, October 27). Moral Gaming: The Importance of Decent Games. The Artifice.

Retrieved from http://the-artifice.com/moral-gaming-importance-of-decent-games/

Morality. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2016, from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/morality

Scutti, S. (2016, July 26). Do video games lead to violence? CNN. Retrieved from

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/health/video-games-and-violence/

Sinclair, B. (2013, May 6). Publishers Betting On "Fewer, Bigger, Bloodier". Gamesindusty.biz.

Retrieved from http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-04-publishers-betting-on-

fewer-bigger-bloodier

U.S. Catholic Bishops. (1994). Confronting a culture of violence: A Catholic framework for

action. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved from

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/violence/confronting-a-

culture-of-violence-a-catholic-framework-for-action.cfm

Violence. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2016, from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/violence