An Australian TV article on violent game titles and their effect on the country's junior offer from a psychologist to declare that the hyperlink between violent videogames and junior crime is higher than the connection between smoking and lung tumors: Videogames & Assault Go Together like Smoking cigarettes & Lung Tumors.
The reason for this assignment is to recognize the ethical issues underlying the hyperlink between videogames and violence and highlight why is the challenge difficult to resolve. Two different theoretical approaches were chosen to be able to analyze the ethical issues to derive the response to the question "What shall I really do?" The final stage of the task is to reconsider the original response and showcase similarities and constraints of the two approaches to ethical problems.
Identify the issues
The evidence shows that these game titles are adding to a culture of violence, aggressiveness, and anti-social tendencies (insert guide). If I thought we would use violent computer and video gaming I become complicit in an industry which is harming our world and easily participate and contribute to this culture am I morally irresponsible?
My primary response
The research I have done regarding possible ramifications of the violent video games on the children's manners has formed my opinion regarding the issue identified in the assignment. My initial respond to the problem is that "whether to participate in playing violent video games depends upon many aspects, one which is the character of the members. Together with the fast development in technology, young adults may easily see violence all over the place, even before they could play video games. In my opinion, the fact that young adults play violent video gaming more shows how kids are influenced by violence, rather than facilitates or designers the campaign of violence. Part of the domestic reasons includes the irresponsibility of parents to take care of their children and limit their usage of internet. Hence, I think the action to participate in the violent video gaming is not morally irresponsible.
Analysis of the ethical issue
Two relevant strategies: utilitarianism and Kantianism solutions have been used to analyze the ethical concern in this case.
3. 1 Utilitarianism
Parties affected
The first step of applying utilitarianism is to identify various parties who'll be affected by the genuine and foreseeable results of the ethical decision. For this case, the majority of video games operates by the distribution channel; hence the various parties damaged are: myself; companies producing video gaming; suppliers of these companies; stores of violent video games; shareholders of the complete distribution route of video gaming industry, employees of the syndication route of the industry, all consumers to whom the video gaming can be purchased or rented; whole society in which violent video gaming are played out; countries where violent video gaming producers are based.
Consequences
The second step is to consider another feature of utilitarianism, which is consequentialism, ""as retaining that the moral rightness associated with an action is to be judge by the welfare that results from it. " (Geoffrey, 1993, p. 69). Research of the case must be based on the analysis of consequences rather than the action itself.
There are two elements of utilitarianism: hedonistic aspect and impartiality element. Hedonistic element is shown in choosing the act which would bring the best amount of positive results and least amount of negative repercussions. Impartiality component is reflected in choosing decision which calculates the pleasure and unhappiness of myself equally important as the pleasure and unhappiness of others. (Ermann, & Shauf, 2003).
Two Measurement Ways of consequences
The third step is to decide on which measurement method of consequences to judge and measure enjoyment and unhappiness. There are two methods: qualitative method by John Stuart Mill which implies that activities are "right compared as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they have a tendency to produce the reverse of contentment" (Gary Chan & George TL Sheony, 2009) and quantitative method by Jeremy Bentham which suggests that pleasure and pain will be the quantitative and can be expressed quantitatively. For instance, intensity of any happiness, its duration, its probability, chance to set-up further outcome, amount of people influenced by it (Martineau, 1901).
In this circumstance, because of the difficulty in identifying effects for others, I've made some fair assumptions and can use qualitative theory in order to assess the problem.
Consequences of option 1: to participate
Positive outcomes include:
To me and other players, we gain personal excitement through having the opportunity to buy or lease these game titles. To employees of that industry, they feel treasured psychologically and gain benefits fiscally. To shareholders of these companies, they gain permanent gains. To countries where those market sectors are concentrated, they will benefit from increases in taxes collected because of stable and increase revenue.
Negative implications include:
As a result of me being complicit in gaming industry with violent content and with thought of the dangerous consequences for everybody concerned, the sole negative consequence seems to be violence towards population caused by aggressive behaviors.
Consequences of option 2: never to participate
The second circumstance we need to consider is the results of not taking part in the games industry with violent content.
The positive implications would be only for society in terms of understanding for understanding their concerns. The sole negative consequence would be the whole distribution route and the industry losing customers who give up playing because of moral key points and changing attitude. There will never be repercussions for other people involved.
Final conclusion
The last step by using utilitarian procedure is last but not least all the pleasures and pain discovered above. As is seen, "to participate" causes larger amount of positive consequences and only 1 negative outcome. "Not to participate" has more negative implications than positive outcomes. To conclude, the take action "to participate" is moral from a utilitarian point of view.
Kantian
Kant's theory is a kind of Deontological theory, which retains that activities are right or incorrect themselves regardless of consequences. Kant's theories focus on natural reason, good will and independence or autonomy, the concepts that are detached from the sensory perceptions and hard facts of the world. In the idea of 'good will", Kant mentions the idea of "duty", highlighting that if people take action out of obligation only then the actions have moral worth and on the other hand, if the person functions out of his quest for happiness alone, then your actions will not be considered as moral. Therefore, regarding to Kant's theory, the work of playing violent video does not own any moral price because I do not respond from duty but my desire to obtain a pleasure.
Application of Categorical Imperative
Principle of Universality
The rule of universality states that "act only corresponding compared to that maxim where you can at exactly the same time will that it will become a widespread law". (Kant, 1785, cited in Ermann & Sahouf, 2003, p. 13). According to Pojman (1990) "maxim" is a guideline one has to check out if he/ she want to do particular action. "Universal rules" seems to be a test which asks you whether you want this guideline be accepted and followed by everyone all the time.
The function is morally acceptable if you wish that everyone would do exactly the same action; Alternatively, the act is known as morally wrong if you do not will for everyone to follow this then you might not exercise this action as well.
In order to use categorical imperative theory I've created the maxim of my act.
Maxim will be: if I want to buy and play violent video games, I should buy and play them. Applying "Universal low" test to maxim I created: If anyone would like to buy and play violent video gaming, she/he should buy and play them. Further, if everyone would play violent video gaming then degree of violence, aggression, and anti-social behaviour would increase considerably and finally I'd be involved in the created situation and have problems with it. It seems that easily universalized the maxim, it might be chaos and extreme violence. The effect would be self explanatory to the lack of moral well worth in the act, as no logical agent would like to are in such place and become a sufferer of the assault and hostility. Hence, maxim fails to complete "universal low" conditions, it might be immoral.
Principle of humanity
Principle of mankind expresses that people should value ourselves and everything human being evenly and treat them as ends rather than as means. I have not found rational application of this formulation to the case, because buying and learning violent video gaming by me will not manipulate or use anyone as means and there is nobody to be cured as ends.
Summarizing above mentioned arguments, it is figured matching to Kant's theory playing violent video gaming in this case would be unethical.
Reconsideration of first response
Before going right through the ethical decision making process, my initial response was protective. Associated with I overlooked some factors and made my decision predicated on intuition somewhat than concentrating on the ethical decision making.
By applying both of these approaches, there was not really a drastic change in my final position regarding the concern but beneficial change for me about how to process and analyze information and way the ethical issue systematically. For example, by applying Utilitarianism, it enlightened me check out issue correctly by stressing on future results rather than actual ones and looking at the whole picture rather than focusing on individuals by itself.
Comparison between Utilitarianism and Kantianism
By making use of both Utilitarianism and Kantianism, I became aware both theories discuss fairness or equity. " In utilitarian theory it is reflected in principle of impartiality. In Kant's theory it is mentioned in second formulation of "categorical imperative".
Limitations to the approaches
However, both Kant's and Utilitarianism theories have some doubtful aspects. For example, both ideas are contradicting to common sense in some occasions. Specifically, utilitarian strategy will be absurd if every party affected by the decision making uniformly splits up the world's society, then it'll be unlikely to determine consequences.
In particular, Utilitarian aggregative aspect appears to be absurd if "everyone includes" amount is about 50 % of the world, since it would be next to impossible to calculate results. These aspects did not allow me to accept these ideas entirely, therefore change my views drastically.
