Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Hasta La Vista Homer
As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is the argument more valid as video game technology improves and the simulation of reality more seamless? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It’s truly incredible that Plato and Arnold Schwarzenegger share a common belief 2,000 years from one another. They both agree that violent representation whether it is in video games or Homer should not be exposed to youths. The law to ban violent video games for minors was ruled unconstitutional but I too agree with Schwarzenegger and Plato that our youths should not be exposed to violence. When I was younger my dad took away all my Power Ranger and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movies because he feared I would grow up with a false representation of the world. As it turns out he was right and I haven’t grown up as a violent kid. I agree with Plato because telling stories of violence and heroes tells minors that if heroes act violently it’s okay for them to act violently too. If youth are never introduced to warfare or immoral behavior then they do not know what they’re missing. If all youth do not discover real life violence until they are mature enough, then they will less likely become immoral people. Arnold Schwarzenegger could further add on to his point that violent video games should be banned for minors. Porn is also relevant in this argument. Porn is similar to violence in the sense that it provides a wrong representation of the actions shown. Video games and porn are immoral because they send the wrong message to kids. When the youth grow up they will think the world is just like they’re fantasies of video games, however it is quite the opposite. When reality hits them, they will be unprepared to handle the struggles of the real world. Therefor I agree with Plato and Arnold Schwarzenegger that we should prohibit our children to play violent video games or read Homer.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand the argument that both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Plato make which opposes the depictions of violence in either literature or video games, I disagree with the notion that this fictional violence will provoke a violent nature in a child. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum from what Yonah argued, I believe that there is an element of truthfulness in both Homer's writing and video games: the reality is that violence exists, and learning early in life how to deal with this violence is something that must be learned before adolescence. A complete ban on these types of depicted violence is unrealistic: such violence exits within the real world, and sheltering children and young adults from such things would be more harmful to a society than helpful. If an individual had never been exposed to even the notion of violence, as Plato suggests should be the case, reality would then be a complete shock for them. Though it would be ideal if violence were not a fact of human society, this is an idealistic and nearly impossible idea in practice. The truth is, violence plays an arguably large role in our society, between the constant warring of nations and playground fights, and exposure to this truth is realistic at nearly any age. Further, this exposure to violence can be balanced with strong moral lessons from parents at a young age, thus deepening a child’s understanding of right and wrong – morality and immorality. It seems to be impossible to understand one without the other, thus learning violence would deepen the understanding of morality and what is right. Overall, the censorship of violence to the extreme that Plato argues for is an unnecessary precaution: whether violence appears in stories or not, it still exists within human nature and the world.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe banning violent video games will make create moral people, it may actually just achieve the opposite. Plato clearly makes an argument on how an early exposure to undesirable content can have negative consequences. His points mainly consist on only allowing positive examples of media to be presented to children so they are only influenced by beneficial content. I believe this argument is valid, but I believe it has some bigger negative consequences to censoring information. Growing only in positive influences, one cannot distinguish what is right and wrong as they have never experienced the wrong or even know what confines to the definition of wrong. This can lead to people performing bad deeds constantly because they don't know any better. For example, if one never knew burping was impolite, they would not change their behavior and believe it as acceptable. This is why exposure to violent and other types of video games is fundamental in the process to distinguish what actions and behaviors are acceptable and what aren't. I also believe even if a ban was attempted, it would inevitably fail. As with anything, when there is a law or rule, there are those who will always try to bypass it. Therefore no ban should be enacted. I also believe that the graphics of a video game doesn't hold any ground in banning video games. The more realistic something looks, the more people will be dissuaded from committing violent actions as they see the gore. They may even stop playing violent video games altogether. The best way for people to learn is by experience, and a simulation in a video game is a great way to find out what is right and wrong. There are no negative drawbacks in the real world for actions you make in the video game.
ReplyDeleteThe argument made by Schwarzenegger can be morally justified however; prohibiting video games is impossible to enforce or control and therefore there is no purpose in trying. Similar to movies and television video games have a suggested age limit on them and certain games are only meant to be sold to someone of a specific age or else they need permission from a parent. Parents also need to give permission if their child is under the age of 17 and wants to an R-rated movie. The problem is these rules are rarely enforce so if someone who was not of proper age wanted to watch an inappropriate movie or play a violent video game, there is nothing in their way to stop them. This access to games and movies may be alright for someone who is mature and probably around high school age however; younger children who repeatedly play violent video games begin to pick up violent habits that can stay with them throughout their lives. Douglas Gentile, an associate professor of psychology, explains that there is no differences between the way habits are learned from video games and the way one learns to play the piano, “If you practice over and over, you have that knowledge in your head. The fact that you haven’t played the piano in years doesn’t mean you can’t still sit down and play something . It’s the same with violent games – you practice being vigilant for enemies, practice thinking that it’s acceptable to respond aggressively to provocation, and practice becoming desensitized to the consequences of violence". Many people may not realize the direct relationship between the video games the child is playing and the child's actions because the child is not directly imitating what he or she sees, instead they are unconsciously learning new, aggressive habits. Because it is so difficult to make the connection between the violence seen in video games and violent behaviors in children it often goes unacknowledged. Also due to the fact that technology is so ingrained in our culture, we are constantly making new advances in the quality of the games children play. These advancements are often view in a positive light, however as the games become more and more realistic the line between reality and fantasy becomes blurred. Someone who is not fully developed and may lack the ability to decipher between the two should not be granted access to that type of technology. However, simply setting age limits is not enough because similar to alcohol, there is always some way that someone underage could get their hands on it. But, since new technology is such a huge part of our culture and policing it would be next to impossible, we would never be able to make violent video games completely illegal.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely some truth in the arguments made by Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I still don't think that taking away violent video games for kids does any real good towards preventing aggressive behaviors from arising. Evidence supporting the claim that violent criminals are often 'inspired' or 'trained' by violent video games is near non-existent. The content of violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto will not inspire kids to commit violent crimes. How often do little kids imitate heroes fighting villains in cartoon shows, or play mock war with legos? I think that the main issue with children playing violent video games is who they play it with. If a child plays Halo with his older brother, he will probably have a different attitude than if he plays it with a bunch of strangers whose natures could vary. When playing a video game, even a violent one, the player, even if they are a child, understands what they are playing is fantasy and not reality. This divide between fantasy and reality serves to prevent children from emulating behavior found in violent video games in real life. The only signs of actual aggression children show as a result of video games that has been proven is when they are playing the violent video game itself. A short-term aggression increase does not mean a child is more prone to commit violent acts. Also, as we've seen in the past with Plato's criticisms of Homer and how he portrays heroes, there tends to be claims of alarm against newer forms of media when the come out. People thought the advent of television and movies were going to bring up the crime rate of the country, but that obviously failed to materialize. Video games, even violent ones, are no different in this manner.
ReplyDeleteI believe that such a limitation on video games is not only useless because it would be impossible to enforce, but there is also no logical correlation between fantasy violence and real violence. Firstly, if such a law were implemented it would be done so to attempt to shield children from violence, though if video game violence should be deemed to realistic for children's minds, how could one stop there. Plato used the example of Homer, a play writer, to show how they should purge violence from society. Thus for Arnold's example to make sense he must be in the support for the censorship of all forms of art depicting violence to children's minds, including movies, music and even books. But, the censorship of all art for children is unrealistic. Secondly, such a law would be impossible to enforce as a parent against the law as they deem the game suitable. In today's society a standard video game costs roughly 60$; without a job, no child would be able to purchase most standard games. Thus, most children's video games are purchased through parents money and therefore their approval, which means most parents find such games acceptably violent. Aside from enforcement the logic supporting the argument is also flawed. The most commonly stated argument is that such games develop an acceptability for violence. Although, even before the influence of video games children know what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. It is this knowledge of what is acceptable that video game manufactures use to develop their games. They create their games to offer a freedom for people to do what is unacceptable and unrealistic as it is the unrealistic choices which attracts children and older people from their acceptable lives to a free one. If a child could not understand what was unacceptable a video game would offer them no satisfaction compared to their real lives. Another commonly stated argument against video games is that of the increasing realism and immergence into explicit scenarios. People are concerned that as the virtual becomes increasingly similar to reality people will fail to comprehend the difference between the two. But, undeniably no matter how realistic a game becomes it will never be real. While a game can develop impressive graphics, a game can never give the feeling of guilt and fear of the consequences to which reality does. Conclusively, a law to prevent the distribution of violent video games to children is not only illogical but impossible to implement into modern day society.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that Socrates/Plato brings up is structured in a manner similar to this: Representational narrative involves taking on the part of a particular character, and in some cases, a bad (immoral) one. These narratives that do involve taking on the role of a “bad character” are considered harmful. Thus, representational narrative creates BAD habits. Now, in many ways this argument is almost identical to the one that is being discussed today, regarding the effect that violent video games has on teenagers. On one hand, some believe that violent video games translate into real life violence among teens. This is essentially the same as what Socrates/Plato is saying, where the acting out of “bad role” is, whether in a book written in the BC era or in a 2015 video game, leads to bad habits. So, yes, in many respects this argument CAN be used and applied to the current situation with video games. However, that does not mean that it is necessarily correct. I would say that about (and this is a total guess) 85% of “rated-M game owners” are not actually 17 and older. So, maybe some studies show that there is in fact a statistical correlation between violence and violent video games – it is still the case that these findings are of a low denominator. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), “there isn’t enough evidence to prove that playing violent video games raises the risk of criminal behavior or violence” (news.health.com). There are also many other impeding variables to look at when examining these studies, like whether or not the teens only used video games and not other “devices” that could promote violence, or whether or not the teens are genetically-disposed to being more aggressive. So, at least of yet, there is not much out there that is convincing enough to tell us with absolute certainty that, yes, video games do in fact cause violence and aggression among teens. Maybe, if video games were to become much more realistic there might be some sort of direct relationship between the user and the game, that starts to show more of a concern towards the presented issue. But as of now, there is no much to go off of that really justifies that total banning of any and all violent video games. Let’s say, however, that there was a law that was passed that banned violent video games for all users. So, now there is one thing that can be crossed off. But are we done just yet? The answer is no. Such a ban would just create a domino effect, where several other forms of media would also have to be banned, like books, magazines, and most importantly, the internet. So, to some extent I agree that of course, games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty should NOT be in the hands of ten year olds, but to ban it from reaching teens and adults is pretty rash. Before Schwarzenegger goes off signing laws to prevent the distribution of violent video games among teens, he should probably do the same for the violent movies that he is featured in (like the Expendables).
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Plato; restricting the use of violence would not prevent the problem. In 378a-b Plato argues that stories depicting violence and heinous crimes need to be censored. Schwarzenegger argued that violent video games would lead to violent tendencies in the youth population. Censoring these stories or video games would not prevent the actual issues. Throughout history humans have had to fight to survive and use violence as a means to safety. Stories depicting violence would have little to no effect on the people who struggle to remain non-violent. Plato later goes on to argue that a moral person has a healthy mind and therefore has moral actions, while people with a unhealthy mind make immoral actions. Often the stories of violence depict someone heroic and possibly even moral actions in order to protect what is right. So, showing a person with a healthy mind these stories would give them an idea of when violence could be justified. A person with an unhealthy mind would already be unable to determine what is right, so showing them violence is not what would make them be immoral. As technology increases, I think that having games with violence will deter people who have a stable background and a healthy mind from committing acts of violence. Games are headed in the direction where they will be so realistic that many people will become unable to play them because of the realness of what they are doing. The fact that they are so popular now is because mm. there is a distance between the player and the violence.
ReplyDeleteEver since the beginning of human civilization, philosophers have been pondering about morality. 2000 years ago, Plato argued that children that grow up reading Homer’s writings would become immoral due to the false information they were exposed to. In 2005, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, made a similar argument with video games and signed a law that “imposed fines on stores that sell video games featuring “sexual and heinous violence” to minors” (The New York Times). Although I see where Schwarzenegger is coming from, I do not believe that today’s video games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto should be banned for minors. In today’s world, many TV shows, movies, and games contain profanities and gory scenes, and may depict a character doing immoral things. The fact is, we do not live in a utopian society, profanity, violence, and immoral people have and always will exist. Eventually, everyone is going to be exposed to profanity and violence one way or another. Censoring what children are exposed to will not create a utopian society. In ancient Greece and Rome, video games and TV did not exist. However, profanity and violence still existed. Sheltering children will only make the transition into the real world more difficult. Instead, children should be exposed to the good and the bad. In school, we learn about the “heroes” and “villains” throughout history. We learn about history so we can copy the good and prevent the bad. The same mindset should be applied to video games, and TV. If children are exposed to violence and see how people are affected by it, they will realize that violence is wrong and not want to be violent. For example, if a child watches a movie about a father being killed, the grief the father’s family goes through shows how killing can affect people. The child will realize that they can kill but won’t because they realize that it’s wrong. As long as children are taught right from wrong, there is no reason they should not be able to play video games, watch TV/movies, and read books.
ReplyDeleteBoth Plato and Schwarzenegger’s arguments make sense and their ideas can be justified. Yet, it is absurd to think that a fictional form of entertainment could influence a person so much that they would mimic certain behaviors in real life. It is important for a child to learn that there is bad in the world and that everything can’t constantly be perfect. By introducing them to things such as Homer they will be exposed to the bad things in life. As long as a child is taught that the bad things they are witnessing are wrong they will not do these things, unless they are mentally unstable. When someone plays a video game or watches a movie there is a part of their mind that tells them that what they are witnessing is fictional. If it were true that things with inappropriate content caused people to act inappropriately, there should be a lot more criminals. Assuming that a child who kills in a video game also will kill in real life is also assuming that that child has no conscience. Although there a people who kill and feel no remorse, a person with a correctly functioning brain would feel remorse for killing and won’t kill in the first place because they know it is wrong. But a child who is never told something was wrong or was never introduced to it may do wrong things and not know they are bad. Rather than taking away everything that has bad content we should make more of an effort to stress to children what is right and acceptable and what is wrong.
ReplyDeleteSure, a case can be made that video games should be prohibited, especially among young children, but it appears to be a misguided one. There are far too many real world dangers that are not only legal, but socially acceptable, for the claim to be made that violent video games should be forbidden in the name of safety. Real guns, for instance, are a greater threat than virtual guns, real alcohol more impactful on one’s judgement than virtual alcohol. How can one argue that children shouldn’t be exposed to certain virtual concepts, when their real world counter parts will soon be accessible? In fairness, video games also often depict things that are not legal, such as murder or theft, but they are hardly the only way for kids to be exposed to these things. Movies, YouTube, and news broadcasts are all among the modes for viewing violence that even sheltered children can access. Should we then ban all forms of media, entertainment, and spread of information? It sounds outlandish, but no more so than isolating video games as the lone problem when we are surrounded by a world of alternatives that have an equal, if not greater, capacity for damage. Additionally, it seems the very same people who are so concerned with children and teens playing violent video games worry little about the exposure of children and teens to real life violence. All over America, there are masses of youth who, on a daily basis, are exposed to violence against women, gang violence, shootings (yes, real ones), and drug-related violence. These children become adults, and have their own children, and unless they get lucky, the cycle continues, and life never improves. Of course, the people who are terrified of violent video games and the effect they could have on their impressionable children rarely cross paths with the people who live their lives in one big violent video game, only one they can’t chose to stop playing. It’s a cozy life to live, really, when violent video games rank among one’s greatest worries, and the irony in the entire debate, is that far more dangerous than violent video games, is pretending they are the real problem.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePlato argued that exposure of violent literature to minors would taint their minds. The problem with his argument is that it stands up in theory but studies on the effects of violent entertainment have not shown any indication that the correlation is true. It is not insane to believe that what we see affects how we think and act. However, seeing negative aspects of the world does not necessarily cause negative actions. I can say this with confidence because modern science has agreed with this principle. So how do we interpret these results? The explanation I choose is that one must experience evil to determine what is good. What is the use of morality if you can never apply it to a situation? For a person to be truly moral, they must exercise their morality. That cannot happen if they are sheltered and never see any situations that cause them to make decisions of what is right and wrong. The case can be made that a developing brain that does not yet understand right from wrong should be sheltered. A young child should not be exposed to violence and immorality during their critical development period of 0-6 years old. But the best teacher is experience and it takes experience from more than one point of view to understand something. A person who has only seen good their whole life cannot understand what is bad and likewise a person who has only seen bad cannot understand good. It takes a balance of life experience to see the world as it truly is, so hiding from half of the world does more bad than good in terms of learning.
ReplyDelete