Topics Ethics

Question I was having a discussion with a friend about video games, and she said, "Just imagine what we could accomplish if people took the time they invested in video games and invested it in something meaningful!" Now, setting aside the question of what is meaningful, she makes an interesting point. Obviously, the point applies equally well to television, film, music, and entertainment in general - video games are just one kind of entertainment media among many. So my question is this: do we have the right to devote some of our time to entertaining ourselves, when we could instead be devoting that time to fighting global warming, AIDS, violence, poverty, depression, cancer, and any other number of ills? How can we justify entertainment for as long as suffering continues to exist?

Accepted:
July 29, 2011

Comments

This is a really important question, but it is also one that too many people think is self-answering--as if it is simply obvious that if we are not feeding the poor or curing the sick (or whatever) we are simply being selfish and immoral. There are a couple of ways to resist this extreme position.

(1) Supererogation is what ethicists call it when something goes "above and beyond the call of duty"--what is more like heroic than morally required. A moral theory (or command) that requires supererogation is regarded as faulty, because by any such theory or command, it will turn out that perfectly decent human behavior (like me teaching a class on Socrates) is immoral, simply because I could be doing something more likely to cure the sick or feed the poor (or whatever).

What's more,

(2) A theory or command that mandates such high standards at all times would, in all likelihood, make us all miserable, because we could never take a break, never seek simple (and innocent) entertainment, and all the rest. Just think about all that is required for a reasonable concept of "a good life." Now think about how much of that one would have to give up on completely and forever if morality required that we never "waste time" (where what counts as "waste" is anything that doesn't feed the poor or heal the sick, etc.) Is it really a reasonable mandate that we are not allowed to "take breaks" in this way? I think not!

However, this is not to ssay that we now get a kind of blank check from ever pitching in an doing things that will relieve the sufferings of others. So it has to be a matter of balance, and I think it is fair to suspect that those of us who live in very wealthy and secure places have a tendency to neglect our duties in order to take a few too many breaks and seek far more entertainment than the truly good life requires.

And there is more to it than this. We might also ask whether there are actually better forms of entertainment than those we choose now. There have been psychological studies in which people are given something like $20 and told either to spend it on themselves or spend it on someone else. Those who spent it on others reported greater happiness than those who spet it on themselves. Other studies of what are called "prosocial behaviors" also support that such behaviors are strongly linked to reports of greater happiness. So rather than finding playing video games immoral, we might instead advise that there are actually better forms of entertainment available--and not just in the sense of better for others.