Ethics as viewed from Computer Games

A presentation on Ethics as seen from Computer Games Per A. Godejord Associate professor Department of Computer Science Nesna University College

Two perspectives Child Perspective Adult Perspective Egocentrical perspective Critical perspective

Ethical theories and value systems
Utilitarian point of view : I will not “pirate” software, because it might put programmers out of work
Kantian point of view : I will not “pirate” software, because that is stealing, and stealing is wrong

The killing fields of computer games
“ Killing games”
Fair games Unfair games Ghost Recon Postal Rule of Engagement/ No rules Code of conduct
SWAT 4 Manhunt

And the verdict is…
Utilitarian: Its wrong to kill people
Kantian: Its illegal to kill people
Both “fair” and “unfair” games are equally unethical
if we base our verdict on the fact that we have to kill in order to achieve the games objectives

And War Games?
In war it is allowed to kill people – that is; soldiers. Non-combatants is off limits, as often shown in military shooters like Ghost Recon 1 (Civilian casualty ends the game)
So that makes it’s a bit less unethical if viewed from an Kantian?

Some more theories
Normative ethics: - Virtue theories - Duty theories - Consequentialist theories

Virtue theories
Good habits of character: * Virtues : wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, sincerity * Vices : cowardice, insensibility, injustice, vanity

Duty theories
Morality is based on principles of obligation
Some absolute duties: - Avoid wronging others - Treat people as equals - Promote the good of other
Right theory: Other persons right not to be harmed by you
Kant`s categorical imperative: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end

Consequentialist theories
An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable
So if the good consequences are greater, then the action is considered morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper

So what?
Let us have a quick look at two games; one “unfair” and one “fair”:
GTA 3
Ghost Recon

GTA 3
The Hooker Cheat
The action: Pick up a prostitute, have sex to gain extra health, then kill her when you are finished and steal her money, so as not to have financial loss.
Let us have a look on the theories again

The Hooker Cheat as our point of evaluation
Virtue:
It is difficult to argue that there are any good virtues in this specific behaviour
The behaviour might be viewed as both cowardice, unjust and insensible
In the game it is a logical thing to do if you want to win, and you may do it as often as you want to

The Hooker Cheat as our point of evaluation, continued
Duty:
In this case your action is wronging the prostitute
You certainly do not treat her as an equal
No promotion of her good
You violate her rights not to be harmed by you
You treat her as a means to an end; i.e. to win the game

Consequence:
The consequences of the action is favorable to you, but very unfavorable to the prostitute
Let`s pause here for a moment…

Consequentialism revisited
Three ways of looking at this
Ethical Egoism: It is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to you.
Ethical Altruism: It is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except you.
Utilitarianism: It is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

Egoistically speaking the action involved in the Hooker Cheat is ok (it enables you to win the game), but naturally not if viewed in the light of altruism or utilitarianism
So, what do YOU think?

Ghost Recon
In this game there is no specific “cheat” as in GTA 3.
In the Ghost Recon 1 series civilians where milling about, and any killing of them ended the game
In the later series, like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (GR3), there are no civilians at all
Let`s have a look at that

The lack of civilians
Ghost Recon was claimed, at least originally, to be aiming towards training soldiers
In GR3 you are involved in urban warfare, something that means that you, in RL, are “surrounded” by civilians
So is it ethical to portray this sort of warfare as free of civilians and all that it pertains as for decision making and quick reactions?
Think about it!

Killing the enemy – a simple view
Virtue:
Your actions in the game might both be courageous (attacking an equal strong enemy in frontal assault) or cowardice (sniping them from behind and from distance)
They might also be a sign of insensibility (no feelings for your opponent)

Killing the enemy – a simple view, continued
Duty:
Your action is wronging your opponents
No promotion of their good
You treat them as a means to an end; i.e. to win the game

Killing the enemy – a simple view, continued
Consequence:
The consequences of the action is favorable to you, but very unfavorable to your opponents
Go back to Consequentialism

Killing the enemy – a slightly more complicated view
The ethics of war:
Jus ad bellum – When it`s justified to go to war
Jus in bello – Acceptable conduct in war
Just post bellum – Actions within the termination of war
Let`s keep our focus on the actions, i.e what you do in the game…

Jus in bellom
You may attack any military objective
The action must have the defeat of the enemy as the intention
You are to have your weapons visible
You have some limitation as to what weapons are allowed against personnel
Aha! Weapons!

Jus in bellom, continued
In both GR1 and GR3 you have the possibility of using the .50 cal. Sniper rifle.
The International Red Cross want to have the use of this rifle against personnel banned, because of its power and the “explosiveness” of the projectile
The Norwegian Government have instructed that the use of the rifle shall be strictly anti-material capacity only
The US Government view the rifle as usable against all targets

Jus bellom, continued
No chance of surviving a hit by a 50 cal
Is it fair to kill your opponent from 1500 to 2000 meters?
To use this gun against persons is ok from the US point of view, not ok from other points of view. In the game, it`s YOUR choice…

Another view on the killing
Is military first person shooters training our kids to kill?
And if so, is that ethical?
What do YOU think?

A conclusion?
All actions that involve killing and maiming others are unethical
So computer games that include such actions, might be said to be unethical
The spreading of such games to kids might be unethical; i.e. it might desensitise them, make them more aggressive and violent, and so on.

?
What do YOU think?

A task for you
Play Ghost Recon, Full Spectrum Warrior, Counter-Strike or some other similar tactical shooter game.
Read the Geneva Conventions and have a look at DoD Directive 5500.7, "Standards of Conduct" (pdf), or the book " Military Ethics " (In Norwegian) .
Write a short essay discussing if any of the values and rules that you read in the Geneva Conventions, in the DoD Directive and in the book are implemented in the tactical shooter games you have tried. Is it possible to play these games efficiently, and win, and at the same time follow ethical rules?

There are no facts, only interpretations - Friedrich Nietzsche

http://iktl.blogspot.com	117
http://godejord.wordpress.com	31
http://elgg.ell.aau.dk	11
http://www.slideshare.net	5
http://209.85.135.104	1
http://209.85.171.104	1

Ethics as viewed from Computer Games

by Per Arne Godejord on Jan 24, 2008

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

6 Embeds 166

Statistics

Ethics as viewed from Computer Games — Presentation Transcript