Topics Ethics

Question Although there is obviously a distinction between playing a game with simulated violence and actually committing acts of violence, is it immoral to enjoy violent games? Is enjoyment of simulated violence evil, and, if so, where do we draw the line? Is chess immoral since the victor would normally enjoy 'killing' the opponents army? How does the accuracy of simulation effect morality?

Accepted:
June 27, 2007

Comments

I suspect that when people think it’s immoral for someone to enjoy a violent video game, they are presuming that they know the answer to what is in fact an empirical question: do the attitudes and appetites that the gamer is indulging during play “carry over” to real life? Does the “bloodlust” of the gamer predicts or cause real bloodlust. Will playing such games render the gamer less sensitive to real violence? My experience suggests that the gamer’s attitudes do not carry over to real life. I like to play violent video games, but I can only remember one instance in my whole life in which I actually hit someone (my son – and I sorely regret it), and I still find I’m revolted by photos or descriptions of scenes of torture and war. I’m not the only one like this – if I were, then either violent movies would be a lot less popular, or there’d be a lot more murderous rampaging going on than there is. I suspect that it’s really important to the games’ and movies’ being fun that the players and the audiences know that it’s all pretend.

But I reiterate: this is really an empirical question. And it turns out to be hard to answer. To test it, you need to have a good measure of what someone’s attitudes are before and after playing the game (or watching the movie). But how do you get such a measure? Many studies have subjects fill out questionnaires, but it’s not known what such responses really indicate. Even if the “aggression” responses increase (and they do not always), it’s unclear how longlasted or serious such responses are. It’s also not known exactly what features of the games/movies are producing the effect – perhaps the effect is the result of any high excitement. (One interesting recent study – designed to look at another issue altogether – found that subjects who watched a tape of Saturday Night Live were more inclined than a group watching a travel documentary to advocate pushing a person over a bridge to stop a train that would otherwise kill five other people.)

I think the same question can and should be asked about pornography. It is possible, as some feminists contend, that indulging sexual responses to images of women in degraded or dehumanized “carries over” to one’s attitudes toward real women. But this is an empirical question, and I think it’s just as likely that people’s sexual responses to various images depend on their believing that the images are pretend. It’s hard to study people’s sexual fantasies, because for many of us, they’re really embarrassing and we won’t admit to having them. But – as feminists also have taken pains to emphasize – it’s emphatically one thing for women to fantasize about being raped, and another thing for them to actually enjoy rape. If that’s so, I don’t see why a person who would never, ever consider raping a woman might not still enjoy fantasizing about raping a woman. (And for the record, I am a feminist.)

"I don’t see why a person who would never, ever consider raping a woman might not still enjoy fantasizing about raping a woman."

I agree that this is possible. But this does not really answer the question whether there would be anything wrong with such fantasizing and such enjoyment. Leaving aside chess (which offers enjoyment of a very different kind), I think that this would be wrong - even if it did not lead to any kind of violent behavior toward actual women. Why?

First, it would be wrong because the rape fantasizer could not know in advance what we assume to be true, namely that his fantasies would not cause him to be violent. He cannot know that, drunk or sober, exuberant or depressed, he'll never act out his fantasies when a "safe" opportunity presents itself.

(To this one might respond that actual violence may be as easily triggered by not fantasizing about it as by fantasizing about it. Refraining from violent fantasies is as likely as its opposite to cause violence. By not fantasizing about violent rape, a man is thus just as likely to make himself less safe as he is to make himself safer. -- From what I have read on the subject, I don't think this response has much chance of being true. But this is, of course, an empirical matter.)

Second, by allowing himself to enjoy rape fantasies and violent sex movies, a man disrupts his relationship to women and makes real friendship (let along love) with women very difficult. For suppose you are a woman and know that a man you know hugely enjoys fantasies or movies that feature women being raped, degraded, beaten, mutilated, and so on. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to relate to such a person. (Louise, correct me if I'm wrong here.) Of course, the man might keep his hobby to himself and his male companions. But this poses a different problem for friendship in that a part of his life would then remain unsharable with her -- a part she would deem important if she knew.

Third, there is the ethical task of self-development. We should lead our lives with an eye to being the best that we can be. To work out what the best life is for oneself takes some reflection, which itself is part of living well. People will reasonably come to different conclusions based on their talents, interests, and social environment. All this diversity notwithstanding, some people lead their lives better than others: ethically better. Now imagine a movie theatre full of man screaming in delight as yet another unexpected violent insult is visited on a young women tied to a bed. Even if this woman is actually a consenting and well-paid actress -- is the enjoyment of these men part of the best that they can be?

Let me hasten to add in conclusion that I have not meant to say anything about what the law should be. I have focused narrowly on the question posed: Is it immoral to take - to make oneself into, or to rest content with being, someone who takes - pleasure in fictional violence? I think this is immoral for the reasons given -- a serious ethical defect in a person even if it never manifests itself in his conduct.