Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 10:13.
I've given this topic a lot of thought, but I started off by asking myself a different question. Namely, why do people like myself, who believe that violence is both immoral and self-defeating as a response to evil, still enjoy playing violent video games?
One answer that people often give to this question is as follows: "We just want to experiment, or explore our emotions, by doing something we would never do in real life."
I have to reject this answer, because the depiction of violence in games is never realistic. It might be fairly realistic in terms of the physical aspect, the blood and guts. But it is never realistic in its consequences, to the player himself (or his avatar) and the game world.
In games, you can tear a million men and women to pieces, and you've just saved the world and everything is wonderful. Or, even if it's not — even if you're penalized in some way — you don't feel bad about it. You know the characters aren't real, don't have families, etc. They're just chunks of memory set aside by a program.
So, after giving this some thought, I arrived at the distinction between "imagination" and "fantasy". Instead of imagining ourselves in violent scenarios, with all the attendant consequences of violence, we fantasize about violent scenarios in which there are no consequences. The fantasy, or creation of a false reality, is what makes the enjoyment of violence possible and even admirable.
There's a parallel here with the war propaganda put out by all governments when they make war, as well as the indoctrination of soldiers that is a fundamental part of their training. In both activities, the "enemy" is portrayed as sub-human, thoroughly evil, a thing to be killed without remorse. You aren't supposed to stop and think that the enemy was born of a mother who loved him, has a family of his own, enjoys music and the company of friends, etc. None of that. In other words, a fantasy is created, in which there are no consequences for killing other human beings.
This fantasy if very powerful, because very few people, in the United States for instance, think about the victims of U.S. foreign policy. They are conditioned to think only about "how well the war effort is going". How many "enemies" did we kill today? How many of "our guys" died in glorious combat? This is not real life. It's more like a typical video game, isn't it?
My conclusion: To the extent that games obscure truth, and present a false reality in its stead, they are doing harm to humanity. To the extent that they open the eyes of the player to truth, they benefit humanity.
That's not to say that all games should be "realistic" in the usual sense, nor should they be depressing. They can be whimsical, imaginative and even fantastical in ways that clarify truth, or at least don't prop up falsehoods. In other words, they can still relax and entertain the player without numbing his conscience or fogging his brain.
Dither here.
I've given this topic a lot of thought, but I started off by asking myself a different question. Namely, why do people like myself, who believe that violence is both immoral and self-defeating as a response to evil, still enjoy playing violent video games?
One answer that people often give to this question is as follows: "We just want to experiment, or explore our emotions, by doing something we would never do in real life."
I have to reject this answer, because the depiction of violence in games is never realistic. It might be fairly realistic in terms of the physical aspect, the blood and guts. But it is never realistic in its consequences, to the player himself (or his avatar) and the game world.
In games, you can tear a million men and women to pieces, and you've just saved the world and everything is wonderful. Or, even if it's not — even if you're penalized in some way — you don't feel bad about it. You know the characters aren't real, don't have families, etc. They're just chunks of memory set aside by a program.
So, after giving this some thought, I arrived at the distinction between "imagination" and "fantasy". Instead of imagining ourselves in violent scenarios, with all the attendant consequences of violence, we fantasize about violent scenarios in which there are no consequences. The fantasy, or creation of a false reality, is what makes the enjoyment of violence possible and even admirable.
There's a parallel here with the war propaganda put out by all governments when they make war, as well as the indoctrination of soldiers that is a fundamental part of their training. In both activities, the "enemy" is portrayed as sub-human, thoroughly evil, a thing to be killed without remorse. You aren't supposed to stop and think that the enemy was born of a mother who loved him, has a family of his own, enjoys music and the company of friends, etc. None of that. In other words, a fantasy is created, in which there are no consequences for killing other human beings.
This fantasy if very powerful, because very few people, in the United States for instance, think about the victims of U.S. foreign policy. They are conditioned to think only about "how well the war effort is going". How many "enemies" did we kill today? How many of "our guys" died in glorious combat? This is not real life. It's more like a typical video game, isn't it?
My conclusion: To the extent that games obscure truth, and present a false reality in its stead, they are doing harm to humanity. To the extent that they open the eyes of the player to truth, they benefit humanity.
That's not to say that all games should be "realistic" in the usual sense, nor should they be depressing. They can be whimsical, imaginative and even fantastical in ways that clarify truth, or at least don't prop up falsehoods. In other words, they can still relax and entertain the player without numbing his conscience or fogging his brain.