Fictional Media and Morality

[EyeSeeCold]

Fictional media, especially video games and movies are known for stirring controversy when it comes to excessive violence, sex discrimination, and offensive language. The major criticism is that kids are picking up anti-social behaviors from these games and movies and are emulating them in real life interactions. While it is evident that children's minds and behavior are susceptible to social influence, I think there is another question that needs to be asked about consumers in general:


What is the appropriate moral response to such fictional violence and other obscenities?


There are people who do not see fictional offensiveness as an issue, for some of them it is about distinguishing reality from fiction and the ability to withhold moral judgment on entertainment that is only a work of fantasy. While such keen discernment could be said to be a positive thing, it however, argues that morality is a matter of choice, something that one can turn on and off at will.

There is another group of people who's instincts cause them to react negatively towards fictional violence, whether slightly or passionately. For these people, the concept of morality is innate and applies towards behavior or ideas regardless of whether they are conducted in reality or simulated in media. Here, the valuable viewpoint is that morality is a universal concept intrinsic to humanity. Yet, it could be said that these people have trouble discerning fiction from reality therefore becoming too emotionally absorbed in the fantasy.


Are people who do not take issue with fictional violence immoral?
Are people who take offence to fiction dangerously absorbed?


Can this be compared to internet culture, where you have offensive "internet trolls" and people "who take the internet too seriously"?

 

[Cognisant]

The only legitimate argument I perceive against specifically violent media is how it trains the audience, watching a martial arts movie isn't the same as being trained in a dojo but still monkey see monkey learn, likewise with firearms, movies miss a lot of the important stuff but many of today's adolescents have an uncanny understanding of how to use cover, how to flank, how to cover a retreat, how to stage an assault, etc.

But knowing how to do violent things isn't the same as being violent and that's a key difference, in my experience violence has a lot more to do with attitude and gamers generally don't have violent attitudes, trained as they may be it's just a game to them, indeed it relives tension, perhaps it even disassociates violence from reality to some extent, whereas I have noticed many full contact sport players who have exceedingly violent attitudes and I suspect this has a lot to do with the physically violent sports they play.

Granted there's some people who will project violent games upon reality, but these people, those who can't readily tell the difference between fantasy and reality, have serious problems and need professional help, and no amount of censorship will be able to substitute for that.

Finally games, music and especially movies can have a brainwashing affect on their audience, now I'm not saying horror movies can turn people into serial killers, that's absurd, however an entire generations are still recovering from the warped reality of Disney, and I think the difference there is the subtlety, when watching Dexter or the Joker we know the things they do are extreme and we're on guard against becoming desensitized to their actions, whereas Disney morality was insidiously appealing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The only legitimate argument I perceive against specifically violent media is how it trains the audience, watching a martial arts movie isn't the same as being trained in a dojo but still monkey see monkey learn, likewise with firearms, movies miss a lot of the important stuff but many of today's adolescents have an uncanny understanding of how to use cover, how to flank, how to cover a retreat, how to stage an assault, etc.

I do kind of agree with the training, but if anyone is worried about this, then they should be more worried about gangs receiving military tactics and weapons training[1][2][3][4], and in some cases even the military grade weapons themselves[5]. As far as I know however, this is primarily an issue in North and South America.

But knowing how to do violent things isn't the same as being violent and that's a key difference, in my experience violence has a lot more to do with attitude and gamers generally don't have violent attitudes, trained as they may be it's just a game to them, indeed it relives tension, perhaps it even disassociates violence from reality to some extent, whereas I have noticed many full contact sport players who have exceedingly violent attitudes and I suspect this has a lot to do with the physically violent sports they play.

Granted there's some people who will project violent games upon reality, but these people, those who can't readily tell the difference between fantasy and reality, have serious problems and need professional help, and no amount of censorship will be able to substitute for that.

Yeah that's true, I wouldn't really attribute violent attitudes to gamers or people influenced by games, it's just social imitation. Contact sports is an interesting point to bring up because they actually do promote violent, or at least, aggressive attitudes, which is aggravated by the competitive team aspect of the games.

I don't think the gamer issue is an insignificant issue just one that could largely be dealt with if parents exercised more supervision when it comes to media consumption. For everyone else, it's definitely more of a medium to vent then a generator of aggression.

Finally games, music and especially movies can have a brainwashing affect on their audience, now I'm not saying horror movies can turn people into serial killers, that's absurd, however an entire generations are still recovering from the warped reality of Disney, and I think the difference there is the subtlety, when watching Dexter or the Joker we know the things they do are extreme and we're on guard against becoming desensitized to their actions, whereas Disney morality was insidiously appealing.

I'm aware of the idealism and its effect on the kids, though I'm not sure what you could say about the long-term effects on society. This image might be comical but does try to illustrate that "warped reality".

 

[Sorlaize]

Are people who do not take issue with fictional violence immoral?
Are people who take offence to fiction dangerously absorbed?

(reposting this part from my blog-)

Video games feature a very simple modelling of what killing is. In a decade or 2 we will be at a point where torture and killing in video games will feel real, so then it will be a legitimate concern for influencing the psychology of children who play them.

As for killing- well, what about how people support their armies at all? It's propaganda and nationalism which keeps us thinking about the more local meaning, and obscures us from the reality that some other human being will still suffer personally at each exchange of bullets we are enabling. If it's invisible, it's not a domestic issue. In society we generally say people should be protected in a bubble of intolerance of the harsh realities of our world wherever possible, and this is the fundamental crux of all our moral/ethical inequalities and injustices worldwide. It's the same for animal abuse, and it's the same for polluting the planet with plastic and so on. "Out of sight, out of mind."

So- sex(ualization) in modern media is much more visceral and meaningfully apparent than mindless, senseless killing in video games, which is why it is seen to be more of a serious issue.

Of course, when it is a valid thing for parents to criticize, there will be more serious arguments against torture or killing in video games, than "but interactive violence must be much worse than horror films!". "Mindless and senseless" is a valid description of killing in modern video games, particularly within the weak human-meaning frameworks those games present these scenarios- due to a fundamental pattern of not developing such frameworks but rather, building game AI from scratch with 1 or 2 programmers, for each project. The result (today) is nothing like real human behaviour, and is (by video game developers) never expected to accurately represent such a thing.

Can this be compared to internet culture, where you have offensive "internet trolls" and people "who take the internet too seriously"?

Very different thing, because it is two-way. In Internet trolling (in particular trolling pages of the recently deceased) you have trolls who are extremely desensitized to and unaware of the effects of what they are doing. You then have people on the other end who take it very seriously, as though it was said face-to-face. For the offenders it's a fun experience which is shared by the entire community as it happens.

 

[Sorlaize]

The only legitimate argument I perceive against specifically violent media is how it trains the audience, watching a martial arts movie isn't the same as being trained in a dojo but still monkey see monkey learn, likewise with firearms, movies miss a lot of the important stuff but many of today's adolescents have an uncanny understanding of how to use cover, how to flank, how to cover a retreat, how to stage an assault, etc.

But knowing how to do violent things isn't the same as being violent and that's a key difference, in my experience violence has a lot more to do with attitude and gamers generally don't have violent attitudes, trained as they may be it's just a game to them, indeed it relives tension, perhaps it even disassociates violence from reality to some extent, whereas I have noticed many full contact sport players who have exceedingly violent attitudes and I suspect this has a lot to do with the physically violent sports they play.

Granted there's some people who will project violent games upon reality, but these people, those who can't readily tell the difference between fantasy and reality, have serious problems and need professional help, and no amount of censorship will be able to substitute for that.

Finally games, music and especially movies can have a brainwashing affect on their audience, now I'm not saying horror movies can turn people into serial killers, that's absurd, however an entire generations are still recovering from the warped reality of Disney, and I think the difference there is the subtlety, when watching Dexter or the Joker we know the things they do are extreme and we're on guard against becoming desensitized to their actions, whereas Disney morality was insidiously appealing.

Great post; some things I wanted to say and more.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

(reposting this part from my blog-)

Video games feature a very simple modelling of what killing is. In a decade or 2 we will be at a point where torture and killing in video games will feel real, so then it will be a legitimate concern for influencing the psychology of children who play them.

As for killing- well, what about how people support their armies at all? It's propaganda and nationalism which keeps us thinking about the more local meaning, and obscures us from the reality that some other human being will still suffer personally at each exchange of bullets we are enabling. If it's invisible, it's not a domestic issue. In society we generally say people should be protected in a bubble of intolerance of the harsh realities of our world wherever possible, and this is the fundamental crux of all our moral/ethical inequalities and injustices worldwide. It's the same for animal abuse, and it's the same for polluting the planet with plastic and so on. "Out of sight, out of mind."

So- sex(ualization) in modern media is much more visceral and meaningfully apparent than mindless, senseless killing in video games, which is why it is seen to be more of a serious issue.

Of course, when it is a valid thing for parents to criticize, there will be more serious arguments against torture or killing in video games, than "but interactive violence must be much worse than horror films!". "Mindless and senseless" is a valid description of killing in modern video games, particularly within the weak human-meaning frameworks those games present these scenarios- due to a fundamental pattern of not developing such frameworks but rather, building game AI from scratch with 1 or 2 programmers, for each project. The result (today) is nothing like real human behaviour, and is (by video game developers) never expected to accurately represent such a thing.

I disagree that video games do not accurately simulate violence. Not to precise detail in terms of mechanics and visuals(of course we still only use controllers), but many current games are graphic enough to entertain the idea of acting such acts out. Humans and especially children have a such thing as imagination and can fill in the missing gaps of reality.

I do agree though about the double standard of violence that is nationalist military support.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Observing myself, my kids, and humanity at large rather forces me to conclude that violence is integral to the human condition. To that end, I consider violent media, particularly video games, to be a highly moral alternative to real-life experimentation. Sort of an equivalent to deviant masturbatory fantasies. Of course, the greater problem is that both of these outlets are themselves considered 'taboo'

My one big complaint with video games in particular is that they don't adequately convey the risk-factor, or ultimate consequences of violence. When you die, you simply reload your last save, get bounced back to the last checkpoint, or wait a few seconds to respawn. A truly brilliant game would impose severely realistic penalties on both killing and dying, combined with major rewards for figuring out ways to progress via circumnavigation of violent encounters. Unfortunately, game developers continue to head in the opposite direction of rewarding players for skillfully applied brutality.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Observing myself, my kids, and humanity at large rather forces me to conclude that violence is integral to the human condition. To that end, I consider violent media, particularly video games, to be a highly moral alternative to real-life experimentation. Sort of an equivalent to deviant masturbatory fantasies. Of course, the greater problem is that both of these outlets are themselves considered 'taboo'

My one big complaint with video games in particular is that they don't adequately convey the risk-factor, or ultimate consequences of violence. When you die, you simply reload your last save, get bounced back to the last checkpoint, or wait a few seconds to respawn. A truly brilliant game would impose severely realistic penalties on both killing and dying, combined with major rewards for figuring out ways to progress via circumnavigation of violent encounters. Unfortunately, game developers continue to head in the opposite direction of rewarding players for skillfully applied brutality.

Yeah I didn't even think of that. For some it's an alternative to real life, but then you don't even have the real life restrictions. Of course that's what makes it a videogame, but if you're realistically designing & programming characters and their action sequences including violence and death that is moving toward an unbalanced simulation and away from a harmless videogame.

Some games already have penalties(friendly fire, civilians), or restrictions(can't shoot/aim at certain people), but I don't think it'll ever reach the extent of reality, it most likely wouldn't be profitable.