Moral Objects In Realtion to Video Games

[rogerborg]

I myself was upset that there were no pregnant young mothers crossing the roads pushing prams in GTA

Eh, Rockstar have been pussing out even since GTA 1. Even between GTA3 and San Andreas it's gotten pussie...er... outier. There aren't even any wobbly-legged old bag ladies to mow down any more. On the other hand, the hookers now lie in more satisfying pools of blood, so it's swings and roundabouts.

And I believe the exploration of morality is deeply important. Without it we'd still be beating women, stoning homosexuals, burning heretics, torturing criminals, keeping slaves and engaging in genocide. Rape would still be a spoil of war, and public executions a fun day out for all the family.

Heh, that takes me back. It's true, your school days are the best of your life, you just don't realise it at the time.

Why are these things wrong? Not because some authority said so, but because people explored the question rationally and sensible policies on civil rights were reached.

Bah, a mere blip on the radar of history. Rape is still the reward for victorious warriors, and we'll be back to public executions quicker than you can say "Metus improbus compescit non clementia."

When meat is eventually outlawed (and I believe should and will be)

That's a bit harsh. Would there be "meat police" who go around slapping tickets on corpses?

Ahem. Presuming that you meant killing animals to eat them, would that preclude eating roadkill? What if you killed an animal for scientific research, and then ate it so as not to waste the corpse? What if was coming right for us?

Hey, I hear us scavengers get quite irate of you insist on calling meat "carrion". We can't help ourselves: it's all the bovine growth hormone and 'roids raging through our systems.

[dlangdev]

consider, you made the game and distributed it to the public.

and found yourself seating beside a defense lawyer inside a civil/criminal court.

things that they will prove to make you liable if they follow the procedures of tort, they may nail you down on the following:

1) intent to harm.

2) inciting to commit harm.

3) non-relative absolute malice.

4) gross ignorance and negligence.

how?

1) your game rewards harmful actions.

2) your game punishes good actions and shows graphic harmful actions done on representations of people protected by law (such as children and minors).

hey, as far as torts apply, you go to the slammer.

--------

see tort - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

[bitplane]

When meat is eventually outlawed (and I believe should and will be)

That's a bit harsh. Would there be "meat police" who go around slapping tickets on corpses?

Ahem. Presuming that you meant killing animals to eat them, would that preclude eating roadkill? What if you killed an animal for scientific research, and then ate it so as not to waste the corpse? What if was coming right for us?

Every day people flush perfectly good jenkem away for no other reason than cultural snobbery, there's no need 24 hour guards on sewage processing plants or antishithuffing censorship laws. Nobody needs to make the excuses like "it was there rotting and I happened to walk past it while breathing in"
The meat thing will be similar, on one hand you have an orchard of sausage trees, on the other you could ingest the carcass of a stinking wild beast. Sure some people will do it, but they won't be considered sane.

[Halifax]

I must also <rant>

GTA is not a bad game, as rogerborg has pointed out in his posts. I dislike how media portrays GTA in a bad sense. I have never seen anyone gain points for beating down a cop, although they will gain money.

But on that fact, GTA is not glorify this, they are just creating a simulation of real life. If you beat down a cop in real life, you can get money right, but wait you get consequences don't you! Well GTA also simulates those consequences by having the police chase you, and harass you.

I think that any person over the age of 13 and up that says GTA forced them, or influenced them to do something, had to have some problems before they even set eyes on that game. GTA does not glorify anything.

I guess my point is, why should simulating what goes on in real life be against the law

[dlangdev]

I guess my point is, why should simulating what goes on in real life be against the law

well, if you keep that game private solely to yourself, you could get away by stating it's private property only, the contents represent an idea based on your own private belief.

but then, once you get it out to the public, it's not private anymore.

you're now subject to the rule of law. you have decided to engage society to test how far your personal belief will go.

[bitplane]

1) intent to harm.

2) inciting to commit harm.

Incitement to "harm" a non-living representation of a character is not incitement to harm a person. In GTA1, you were rewarded with bonus points for running over a row of Hare Krishnas.
The only "Intent to harm" I can think of is a flash game called "Important News About Epilepsy" which consists of a full screen unclosable juxtaposition of strobe lights and the text "LOL, SEIZURE!"
Is my previous sentence incitement to commit harm, given that I just made it up and someone may find it so funny that they just *have* to make it happen? (DO IT!!) I doubt it, even though the flash game and linking to it may be criminal in many jurisdictions.

1) your game rewards harmful actions.

2) your game punishes good actions and shows graphic harmful actions done on representations of people protected by law (such as children and minors).

Again, malice against pixels is not malice against people, suicide bomber web games are not illegal, even when you get extra points for blowing up children.

When someone plays a game they are an actor in a story. Could a Hollywood actor claim that playing a serial killer caused them to go out and torture and murder people? They were encouraged to act out the crimes, not just with points but with money.

Tort or no tort, it would never stand up in court.

Also, follow these instructions. If anyone does, Rob Manuel wouldn't take that offline and nor would I stop linking to it.

[dlangdev]

Tort or no tort, it would never stand up in court.

a legal precedent is all what is needed to turn this over, though.

and it will be fought in the court whose precedent will likely be considered by the jury/judge.

but in my personal opinion, i will be siding on the precedent that games made along these lines (philosophy) will carry a burden. it must have a consequence, be it reward or punishment.

[dlangdev]

Again, malice against pixels is not malice against people, suicide bomber web games are not illegal, even when you get extra points for blowing up children.

in games, blowing up images of people is not a good evidence to show malice.

what is considered malice by the law is more than playing games, the ingredients to it involve more than simply holding a game controller and pressing a button.

like i said, the court will figure that out, malice with and pre-meditation to act based on suggestive graphical images is part of the ingredient.

[bitplane]

a legal precedent is all what is needed to turn this over, though.

and it will be fought in the court whose precedent will likely be considered by the jury/judge.

So if such a prescident were set then nobody could produce a movie or a play with villains in it, because they could be sued by the actors playing the characters. Even if you are prepared to pay this price, would the movie industry and everyone who enjoys movies with sadistic villains? What about the actors with the badass goatees who make a living from playing such parts?
Would this be for the moral good of everyone, or the Victorian Values of the minority oppressing the general population? Just think how many rapes have been caused across the Islamic world because American actresses glorify walking around without a burqa. This may sound outrageous, but it's a legitimate complaint.

but in my personal opinion, i will be siding on the precedent that games made along these lines (philosophy) will carry a burden. it must have a consequence, be it reward or punishment.

Then you're limiting everyone to exploration of a small subset of philosophical opinions, Nihilism has no good or evil, while Discordians see the virtue of chaos.
Without exploration there can be no progress, which is why I am pro-freedom and anti-censorship.

[dejai]

Bitplane, I thought public execution was a day out for americans? Oh well my bad. And rob its a good idea what your doing with your kids. Anyway, I think developers don't want all this controversy well Running with sissors seems to love it but most developers don't want this shroud over their heads. I think over all these other objections, rape should not be a playable instance. It can be part of the storyline but I would be a bit disgusted if it was the highlight of the game.. or so called at least.

I also think smoking companies should never be advertised in games, and I even have a a bit of resent for advertising in games, sure it adds realism but it can be over dramatized like the invunrable coke machine glowing 4 times brighter than anything around it just imagine your player picks up a coke then it cuts to a short scene. "Hello my fellow Samaritans I just love the refreshing taste of good old Coca cola LD" all the mean while getting shot in the back by a fat cop :/

I don't think any game should not be allowed to be published unless it breaks into highly - highly discriminative boundary's like extreme sexual assault and racism. I mean so bad that it would start a riot lol Have you played postal 2?


Keep posting,

[dejai]

Quick edition,

I think people that blame games in general for their problems when murdering or commting a horrific crime are just looking for a back door in the legal system.

Oh its not his fault he thought he was playing a game, yes ok then. But it only took 1 shot to the head for him to die? Must be bugged? Oh wow, i don't even have to press the movement keys. Wow the game graphics must be on full. Really their is a lot of things that distinguish a game from reality a good example is a dark dank room and the outdoors and the sun..

[rogerborg]

Tort or no tort, it would never stand up in court.

a legal precedent is all what is needed to turn this over, though.

And an appeal to reverse it again. Since we're playing "what if".

[dlangdev]

dejai:

there is such a motion called class action. if enough people willingly take you to court with the intention squeezing you dry, you will have to find a counselor to defend your published work.

class action is a lot easier than tort, though.

all they need to prove is your published game can corrupt and injure minds of impressionable young minors. for example, severe to extreme bouts of delusional episodes caused by playing the game, leading to breakdown of morality. laziness and slacking are one of the many symptoms. in some case, leading to death.

you know where this is going. i'll make you feel guilty about meditating to create an evil game you described.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action

[bitplane]

Really their is a lot of things that distinguish a game from reality a good example is a dark dank room and the outdoors and the sun..

Even if you're playing "choke-a-rama 2, the glory of the rape holocaust" on a star trek holodeck, you still wouldn't have an excuse to cause anyone suffering in the real world.
A "victim" who can't tell the difference between the real world and a fantasy, be it books, movies, the internet, video games or even lucid dreaming, should be removed from society for the protection of everyone else. No punishment or hatred, just understanding, education, rehabilitation, and responsibility for their actions.

btw, you don't need to encourage people to post in this thread. It's a wonderful flamebait as it stands and will probably make 10 pages before the week is over.

[dlangdev]

Tort or no tort, it would never stand up in court.

a legal precedent is all what is needed to turn this over, though.

And an appeal to reverse it again. Since we're playing "what if".

no sireee,

once a precedent has been established, it cannot be overturned.