Presented to the Socratic Club at CBU by Andrew Cuff on January 17, 2008
As early as the Greek Socratic philosophers in 5th Century B.C., an idea called virtue ethics has permeated axiological discussion. Virtue ethics are based on actions that qualify as “good” or “virtuous,” and make a man a virtuous person. Classically accepted virtues include courage, loyalty, love, truth, compassion, patience, and several others. Every principle of virtue ethics, if it is studied closely, is revealed to be connected with how a man acts. Rather that discussing an argument that supports or denies the legitimacy of virtue theory, let us instead assume it (for the sake of discussion) and continue with the question: Is it logical to apply any sort of ethics for “right action” to the gaming world, where action is highly contextualized? In other words, when a person plays a game as another person, are his actions still subject to being virtuous?
This question applies to many different types of games. While the argument usually centers on video games, many other types of games should be taken into account, as some have often taken center stage in world media and with the Christian Church, one of the biggest American proponents of virtue ethics. For example, it could be argued that a person playing monopoly is not acting as himself, but rather a rich tycoon who cares not for the people he is taking advantage of. Similarly, an actor in a movie could be said to be “playing a game” when he cheats on his wife by filming a bedroom scene. Because he is not committing adultery as himself, but rather as his character in the play or movie, some would claim he cannot be held responsible. Also, tabletop role playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons come to the forefront of the argument. Regardless of the inquisition-like relationship that D&D players had with the Christian church in the 1980’s and 90’s, Dungeons and Dragons and hundreds of other games like it still find a huge audience in those who practice virtue ethics. The pure connection between player and character, as well as the unlimited aspect of choice found in a role playing game world makes RPG’s of this type very pertinent to the discussion at hand. Obviously, the word “game” has massive scope, even when narrowed down to those games which involve role playing as some other character. For this reason, the importance of determining whether virtue ethics should be applied to gaming, and if so to what extent, is paramount.
There are two main problems with comparing gaming to real life. The first is finding a connection between the buttons pushed (or whatever the applicable game may be) and the movements made by an in-game character. When the soldier guns down innocent civilians (whoops! Lose 10 points), should this weigh heavily on the conscience of the one controlling him? If this dead civilian were a real person, and the game soldier had just taken human life (however that may be possible), then the vast majority would agree that yes, the one controlling the soldier is culpable. Therefore, a connection between player and character cannot be denied. However, the real question lies in asking whether the innocent civilian gunned down does in fact have a valuable life. This is an action that is almost always considered to be immoral: the purposeful killing of a non-participant in battle. In this case, though, is this “civilian” not just a collection of zeroes and ones? Would it be wrong for me to type a collection of these two numbers on this paper and then erase them? Obviously the action of deleting the in-game civilian could not be considered wrong, any more than destroying a picture of this civilian would be. The gaming world belongs to a lower caste of reality, as found in Plato’s comparison of images and the physical world. In the same way that an author can kill all of the characters in his book, the gamer can kill the inhabitants of the game world. Although it seems straightforward, this explanation would not suffice for some. Game actions, these would say, are all still based on human decisions. The Halo player who clubs one of his squad members and takes the shotgun for himself is not criticized for taking the AI’s life, but rather for acting in a dishonorable fashion. After all, he could have made the decision to not to kill his robotic teammate. In the game world, this decision would obviously have been superior in regard to virtue. However, I believe that the same argument about the value of life applies in this situation. Would it be more virtuous for me to delete the collection of zeroes and ones on my computer screen, or more virtuous to let them stay? Because the answer is ambiguous, I believe that there is no action that can be undertaken against a fictional character in a game world that is inherently morally wrong.
The second problem with comparing gaming to real life is that all of a gamer’s actions are highly contextualized. The previous examples all used the argument that because a fictional life has no value where it is placed on the scale of reality, it is not wrong to take this life. However, this does not deal with such traditional vices as stealing, lying, or cheating. Because technology is limited in our time, these aspects to virtue ethics often do not appear in video games, and are therefore left out of the discussion. However, these aspects can be found both in board games such as Monopoly, and tabletop role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. A Monopoly player (who is in fact role-playing a wealthy, probably corrupt, tycoon) has the option to hide his pile of money under his title deeds, and when casually asked how much he has, to deceive another player for the sake of future economic superiority. More prevalently, the “thief” class of character in D&D is specially designed to undertake actions that would be against the law and virtue ethics in modern society, such as breaking and entering, assassination, stealing, escaping from prison, and spying. Because both the Monopoly tycoon and the D&D thief often act as if with impunity, undertaking actions that they would not dare undertake in the real world, it suggests a certain moral safeguard that they somehow believe they have. After all, why would a man seen as honest by his friends still be seen this way after a game of Hasbro’s Diplomacy, where treachery is commonplace? The wall that prevents corruption of a game character from translating over to the player is contextualization of ethics. In order for a person’s actions to be considered against an ethical system, the person must be said to be performing those actions. When acting as another person, who can be held responsible for their actions? The classic example of this is the author. When Dostoevsky wrote Crime and Punishment, did he, in fact, murder the miserly old woman and steal her money? To claim that he did so is ridiculous! Dostoevsky was simply responsible for creating the character Raskolnikov, then writing the novel based on what such a character would do. In the same way, a player who controls a character who makes a habit of consistent lying to other characters in the game world is most likely causing his character to do what a character of this type would do if under its own volition. These actions are known as contextualized actions, and cannot be considered moral depravity of the player. However, not all game actions can be considered contextualized actions. Depending on the game being played, it is possible for depraved actions to be inseparable from the player performing them. Let us revisit the earlier example of the actor who cheats on his wife in a movie. I (and most likely the actor’s wife) would find it very difficult to absolve the ribald thesbian for such an audacious vice. What is the difference between this actor’s non-virtuous part to play and the Monopoly Tycoon’s selfishness and relentless ambition?
The answer to this question lies in negative effects that a game can have and the causes of those effects. A game’s negative effects on the real world create moral culpability for its players. The total negative result of a depraved action in a game world is best represented by a three-dimensional graph entitled “Total Negative Effect.”
On the X axis of the graph is the number of players. This has an effect on the total amount of wickedness for an obvious reason; killing a man with seven children obviously does more total damage than killing a man with one (all other factors being equal). This is not a measurement of how much culpability the performer of the action must take upon himself, but a measurement of the total effect of the action. For example, watching an adult play the controversial Grand Theft Auto videogame series may scar a five year old for life: violence, profanity, theft, sexual misconduct, disrespect for women, and blatant disregard for authority barely scratches the surface of all that goes on in this game. In the context of the X axis, scarring ten of these five year olds for life is worse than scarring just one (all other factors being equal).
The Y Axis of the graph comprises something less quantitative, but still abstractly so. This is the inability of a given player to separate game play from reality. For example, it may be hard for a six year old who plays gruesome video games until the time he is twenty to keep from being a violent person. However, it is still possible for the six-year old to understand that he is simply playing a game, and should never undertake these actions in real life. There are many effects of an inability to separate games from reality, and they are all negative. For example, those who play economic simulation games such as Monopoly and Railroad Tycoon may fail to appreciate the value of money and hard work. Those who play games that include violence and/or other adult themes may become desensitized to these events in real life. On the Y Axis, a low score of “inability to separate game play from reality” is superior to a high score, because it lowers the potential vice of a particular game action. Under this category should also be mentioned the aspect of simulation realism, which prevents players from or allows them to distance themselves from the game they are playing. It is very easy to distance one’s self from their game character in Axis and Allies, because only the very dedicated swear loyalty to the Emperor when playing Japan. However, separation may be more difficult in RPG’s, where every miniscule action and thought is directly connected to the whim of the player.
The Z axis of the graph is simply a measurement of how depraved a game action truly is. Of course, it is impossible to list with absolute certainty a hierarchy of sins. Almost all of the axes of the graph (besides number of players, most of the time) are largely immeasurable. However, some disparities between actions become apparent. For example, cold-blooded murder in a game situation would be worse than fudging the numbers on an in-game tax return. And not all depraved actions must take place completely in game context. For example, players that perform actions that seem impolite and unsportsmanlike may be said to be breaking “social contract,” or the unwritten rules between players that allow even hostile games to be played in harmony and amusement. The Z axis provides the basic aspect of total negative effect- that is, the negativity score of the action itself.
(At this time a small caveat is needed to maintain the structure of this very limited, very basic graph. It does not address the question of how the virtuous man should act. If the total negative effect of an action is miniscule, yet existent, is it ever virtuous to perform this action? Let us say that in addition to a small negative effect, there is a massive positive effect, such as education, entertainment, or fellowship. It is difficult to determine what the virtuous man is to do in such a situation. For the sake of discussion, I propose that for the most part, a virtuous man has the right to perform an action in which the good result outweighs the bad result.)
Examine the following gaming vignette: A game of checkers is played between Laura Ingalls Wilder and her sister, Mary. (A Selection from On the Banks of Plum Creek). Laura and Mary, both unable to separate themselves from their poor checker soldiers losing their lives in combat (sending men into a battle of certain death), break into a fight. Their Pa, incidentally, bans the game.
As you can see, the rectangular prism created by the three-dimensional graph system is a quantitative measurement of total negative effect of a game action. If my approximations could possibly be proven correct for the Y and Z axes’ data, then the system might actually work. However, it exists only as an abstract measurement to prove a point. Other factors previously mentioned do not show on the graph, but are apparent at a closer look. For example, the realism of simulation in a game of checkers is very low, so it should make for a low score on the Y axis (inability to separate game play from reality). However, the Ingalls girls have severe social issues, and were unable to separate themselves even given the low level of realism. One can only imagine what would befall them in a head-to-head video game sniper battle! Another factor that works behind the scenes in this scenario is social contract. The depraved action of sending soldiers to die is not the most negative effect in this scenario. It is the fight resulting from the game, the breaking of social contract in the game world and falling to real-time blows. After all, Pa did not punish Mary and Laura for killing each other’s checker pieces, but rather for mistreating each other.
In conclusion, argument shows that while gamers have no intrinsic connection with the actions that they perform in games, these actions can still have a negative effect on players, spectators, and other parties involved. Whether because it causes no damage to anything of value (i.e. human life), or because it is highly contextualized, any traditional reason for condemning one action of a character or another is moot when it comes to the meta-level of reality- the player. However, the reason that games have been decried as “evil” by some is not because gamers have killed artificial intelligences, but because of the effect of these killings on the player. If the Monopoly player becomes greedy, the Risk player a warmonger, the Resistance player violent, or the Mousetrap player an abuser of animals, then gaming has edged in on virtue ethics. This is not only true for gaming, though; it is simply a general statement that should be applied to movies watched, books read or written, and almost every other aspect of life that includes observation of or participation in simulated vice.
