Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: playing with right and wrong
- 2 To prohibit or not to prohibit, that is the question
- 3 Hume's strength of feeling
- 4 Kant's call of duty
- 5 The cost and benefit of virtual violence (and other taboos)
- 6 Are meanings virtually the same?
- 7 There are wrongs and then there are wrongs
- 8 Virtual virtues, virtual vices
- 9 Doing what it takes to win
- 10 Agreeing the rules
- 11 Why would anyone want to do that?
- 12 Coping with virtual taboos
- 13 Conclusion
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
11 - Why would anyone want to do that?
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: playing with right and wrong
- 2 To prohibit or not to prohibit, that is the question
- 3 Hume's strength of feeling
- 4 Kant's call of duty
- 5 The cost and benefit of virtual violence (and other taboos)
- 6 Are meanings virtually the same?
- 7 There are wrongs and then there are wrongs
- 8 Virtual virtues, virtual vices
- 9 Doing what it takes to win
- 10 Agreeing the rules
- 11 Why would anyone want to do that?
- 12 Coping with virtual taboos
- 13 Conclusion
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The first step towards philosophy is incredulity.
(Denis Diderot, Last Conversation)Recall the fictitious game I introduced in Chapter 7 – Crazy for Suburbia – in which white, heterosexual married couples are forced by an intruder (the gamer's character) to perform sexual acts on each other and are then killed. This example could not be said to have incorrigible social meaning for reasons discussed in that chapter, and if it is judged to be worthy of moral prohibition because of its significant social expression (see Ch. 6), then we are left to ponder why the fictitious game S.H. (involving random murders) escapes this, or certainly would escape this if currently available games with similar content are anything to go by. A question yet to be considered is why anyone would want to play a game like Crazy for Suburbia.
Earlier (in Ch. 6) I noted how Nys (2010) argues that part of the fun of violent games stems from the knowledge that what one is doing is wrong (i.e. such games enable us to enact what would otherwise be prohibited). I assume that the “violating-taboos-equals-fun” factor is therefore part of the motivation for playing these games. In addition, I noted how Jansz (2005) argues that violent games provide an arena for psychological exploration; a place where one can engage in STAs free from the moral condemnation (and perhaps even legal constraint) typically associated with POTAs.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethics in the Virtual WorldThe Morality and Psychology of Gaming, pp. 127 - 138Publisher: Acumen PublishingPrint publication year: 2013