I am going to play the game Road Rash in which the player has to street race on motorcycles and the only way to win the race is by knocking off other players by beating them with pipes and chains and running from and beating up the cops. One idea I am thinking about for this game is to show that street racing leads to more serious crimes such as insurance fraud, theft, assault and robbery. In the you have to result to assault and in theory murder to win the game, therefore you go from illegal street racing to a much more serious offense, which shows that what some might consider a minor criminal offense can turn into much more.
Another idea I had about this paper was to show that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. When people street race they can hurt themselves and others, not just the other racers, but the other people in traffic and spectators. Someone who is driving to the grocery store has nothing to do with your race but if you hit them, they are a victim of your illegal activity. I want to explore how people think it is ethical to commit a crime that doesn't hurt anyone else but benefits you and how they do not realize how their actions can truly effect other people.
Finally I could talk about the ethics of crime in general and use street racing and Road rash as an example. Street racers seem to have their own code of ethics, such as secrecy and what they consider OK and not OK in a race. They also have ethics about telling what people have done to their cars or how fast they can run. They have their 'word' about what someone gets when they win a race and consequences if you don't give in after a loss. I feel like this however would be a much harder theory to use while using the game Road Rash as an example.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Two Articles on Video Games
http://www.igda.org/articles/rreynolds_ethics.php
In the article, Playing a "Good" Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games by Ren Reynolds, he argues the point that the game Grand Theft Auto 3 is not immoral because the pleasure people get out of playing out-weighs the harm it might cause. He argues this through several different philosophical perspectives, and through his own ethical and moral views. I do not particularly agree with his argument because although he believes that the pleasure of playing the game outweighs the harms of video game violence, he does not have any proof to back up his statement and is making this assumption on his own beliefs. If a mothers child goes our and commits a violent act because he has been playing a violent video game for weeks, she would probably believe that the harm of the game outweighs the pleasure her child got from playing it. Although I do not really agree with his personal view points, it is also hard to argue and opinion that is not support by fact.
http://elearnqueen.blogspot.com/2004/08/ethics-of-video-game-based-simulation.html
In this article, The Ethics of Video Game-Based Simulation by Susan Smith Nash, she argues the point that using a simulation video game to train military personnel is not ethically sound because it promotes the idea that they player is invincible and dehumanizes killing. She argues that because the player can make their character look like anything, and not just themselves, the player does not associate themselves with the killing and makes it more like a game than a real life simulator. I agree with her points in this article because I believe it would be hard to train military personnel in ground combat with a video game. The air force has flight simulators, but you can construct an airplane and make everything very real including sounds, smells, and what flying feels like. It may be harder however to simulate the battle field in Iraq for a ground solider. By putting a controller or fake gun in their hand and letting them shoot at a screen it does not truly simulate the real life situation of killing another human.
In the article, Playing a "Good" Game: A Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of Games by Ren Reynolds, he argues the point that the game Grand Theft Auto 3 is not immoral because the pleasure people get out of playing out-weighs the harm it might cause. He argues this through several different philosophical perspectives, and through his own ethical and moral views. I do not particularly agree with his argument because although he believes that the pleasure of playing the game outweighs the harms of video game violence, he does not have any proof to back up his statement and is making this assumption on his own beliefs. If a mothers child goes our and commits a violent act because he has been playing a violent video game for weeks, she would probably believe that the harm of the game outweighs the pleasure her child got from playing it. Although I do not really agree with his personal view points, it is also hard to argue and opinion that is not support by fact.
http://elearnqueen.blogspot.com/2004/08/ethics-of-video-game-based-simulation.html
In this article, The Ethics of Video Game-Based Simulation by Susan Smith Nash, she argues the point that using a simulation video game to train military personnel is not ethically sound because it promotes the idea that they player is invincible and dehumanizes killing. She argues that because the player can make their character look like anything, and not just themselves, the player does not associate themselves with the killing and makes it more like a game than a real life simulator. I agree with her points in this article because I believe it would be hard to train military personnel in ground combat with a video game. The air force has flight simulators, but you can construct an airplane and make everything very real including sounds, smells, and what flying feels like. It may be harder however to simulate the battle field in Iraq for a ground solider. By putting a controller or fake gun in their hand and letting them shoot at a screen it does not truly simulate the real life situation of killing another human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)