Everly 1
William N. Everly
Professor Jake Khoury
UNIV 112
28 October 2014
The Ethical Continuum of Violence in Videogames
Gaming has only really picked up around 1998 and since that time, many concerns
involving video games have arrived- the most impacting being the question of how violent video
games impact impressionable young minds. Studies from Thierer and several other researchers
show videogames may not directly cause higher violence trends in terms of youth violence
versus per capita sold of these games, but this does not change the moral dilemma, however,
because there could be huge indirect connections. There are also studies by Kutner and Olsen
showing that those with already violent tendencies are more likely to play violent videogames.
Through a cross-sectional study, it was shown that those that bullied were more likely to have
played M-rated videogames ("22 Charts & Graphs on Video Games & Youth Violence."). So,
the real question here is, “should videogames be allowed to continue if they make violent
tendencies worse?” These games create new, immersive worlds to sink into that can, however, be
negative because many have argued that children subject to these worlds begin spreading the
violent tendencies to their real life. If violence in videogames even slightly increases violent
tendencies, many various demographics could pay the price; gamers may lose their past time, the
families of gamers may be more likely to be abused, victims of abuse could feel more
endangered, the gaming industries could lose their positions and passions, and the legal system
may be held responsible for cleaning up the mess. Three modern thinkers- Sandel, Singer, and
Everly 2
Asma- have varying approaches to moral conundrums, those being justice, egalitarianism, and
loyalty respectively. These different ideas tease out complexity in a couple of ongoing
underlying topics. First, if games do cause a small demographic to be more likely to act violent
impulses, what should be done? Second, is it morally or ethically wrong to use violence as a
selling point from the industry? Three contemporary philosophers have varying viewpoints on
these topics.
So, what should be done if these videogames really do cause already violent children to
be more likely to commit violence? The judicial philosopher, Sandel, would argue that whether
or not violence being increased does not change if videogames are just because he said an
important aspect about justice is “to reason about just distribution of a thing, we have to reason
about, and sometimes argue about, the purpose of the thing.” In this case, the purpose of
videogames has always been entertainment and therefore videogames can be as violent as they
need to be to distract the user and provide a fulfilling entertainment process. But he doesn’t stop
there, as he says that “what we really need to think about is the essential nature of the activity in
question and the qualities that are worth honoring and admiring and recognizing.” All MLG
(Major League Gaming/Gamers) are popular for their ability to combine various skills and arise
victorious in conflict, proving that they’ve earned the honor. Singer, would disagree with
Sandel’s observation though and say that if there is even one case of violence stemming from
gaming, then they have negatively impacted society as a whole because no individual is greater
than another. Sandel and Singer primarily reach their dispute here because Sandel focuses on the
goods/services in question, while Singer focuses on the humanitarian outlook. Singer doesn’t
care about the hand-eye coordination, quick reflexes, teamwork, and strategic thinking that
Sandel would like to honor. Singer provides reasoning for this thought by arguing that we as
Everly 3
humans have a “global responsibility and a global community” for which we must take care of
those born less fortunate than us (381). Singer’s ideas strongly advocate against killing or
violence because there will always be someone who receives the short end of the stick and is
made out to be lesser. These two philosophers greatly differ in their opinions on this scenario
because Sandel, and– in this way– Asma and Sandel are similar. Asma would argue that trying to
appease every possible scenario is not only biologically impossible, but also that being more
reality-oriented would bring back old virtues. First, he states that biological empathy is “like
sprinting, it’s not the kind of thing you can do all the time.” This is backed by studies showing
that it takes mental energy to care, proving that we can’t be in a state of constant empathy for
one-in-one-million cases of violent outbreak, whereas Singer would argue that the one out of the
million is just as important as the rest. He continues by saying that we could better exercise some
disappearing virtues, like loyalty, generosity, and gratitude” (14). These virtues– by definition–
are human qualities that bring about positive ethical change. By this logic, the world could be
improved one kith-and-kin circle at a time. Because it is possible that those effected by the
violence could end up being one close to the thinker, Singer argues, the stance changes. These
conflicting views bring complexity in acting against or arguing immediately for violent
videogames.
An obvious follow-up question regarding violent games is this: is it wrong for the game
industries to capitalize on the trending desire for mature games? Well, the industry holds huge
fiscal stakes in these games, so a movement towards removing violence in games could cause
several large corporations to go bankrupt. However, those that could be on the receiving end of
the violence (previous victims, gamers’ families, and etc) present an emotional counterweight on
Lady Justice’s scale because of the pain they could suffer. Singer argues that the money spent on
Everly 4
videogames could be spent on helping those that are less fortunate instead of being spent on
luxuries of those who already have comfort. He asserts this idea by comparing poverty to wealth:
“In comparison with the needs of people going short of food in Rwanda, the desire to sample the
wines of Australia’s best vineyards pales into significance” (383). Such a strong contradiction
causes the huge ethical question of what’s ‘fair’ into question. Why should one person arbitrarily
be luckier than another and inherit wealth? This idea from Singer strongly contradicts Asma’s
thoughts. Asma believes that “one can’t love humanity, one can only love people” (qtd in Asma,
15). Because of this mantra, one can’t simply fill their social needs by having someone in a third
world country receive their monetary excess. Singer disagrees with the gaming industry in this
light as well, but Asma provides a slightly more realistic– though not necessarily ideal– insight
on right and wrong. Asma would argue that videogames are great… if he happens to know
someone in the industry or a serious gamer. He furthers this claim by suggesting that “we have
circles of favorites (family, friends, allies, etc.) and we mutually protect one another” (15).
Conversely, if he doesn’t share loyalty to either of these stakeholders, but he does care for a
victim or potential victim, then they become ethically wrong. Singer’s and Sandel’s approaches
are much more dynamic in that any observer has the same idea of justice with their
methodologies, while Asma’s ethics are much more relativistic, which causes problems;
Perspective plays an important role in deciding what is just because—as it is in Asma’s
approach—if perspective effects the answer, all perspectives must be considered. In actuality, the
moral question doesn’t change Sandel’s view on the matter. The industries are producing the
games, the games are the source of the subject matter, because the point of his ideals on ethical
arguments is so that “we might improve, elevate, the terms of political discourse in the United
Everly 5
States, and for that matter, around the world” (Sandel). Such dynamic elements add complication
to the monetary gratification of working in the violent game industry.
So, how do violent videogames stand ethically in regards to potential harms they may
cause? Well, the answer depends on the mind that perceives the problem. While Sandel and
Asma may construe the data and subjective knowledge in a way that makes them seem
completely (or circumstantially, as it is with Asma) ethical, Singer may find the risk too great for
a luxury to pose ethically, and see them therefore as unethical. Without more convincing data,
the problem remains at odds with itself and those that question it.
Everly 6
Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. "The Myth of Universal Love." Focused Inquiry: Evolving Ideas. 2014-2015
ed. Plymouth: Hayden-McNeil Publishing, 2013. 12-15. Print.
Sandel, Michael, narr. The lost art of the democratic debate. TEDTalk, 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Singer, Peter. "The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle." Focused Inquiry: Evolving
Ideas. 2014-2015 ed. Plymouth: Hayden-McNeil Publishing, 2013. 380-83. Print.
ProCon.org. "22 Charts & Graphs on Video Games & Youth Violence." ProCon.org. 18 Feb.
2010. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.