Suggesting Violent Computer Games are Morally Wrong Essay

Suggesting Violent Computer Games are Morally Wrong - Essay Example This paper shall analyse moral arguments on whether or not playing violent games are morally wrong. It will mostly consider the argument that playing violent video games are not morally wrong and various moral theorists shall be considered in order to support this position. Body Violent computer games have increased in type and number in recent years. Coupled with the increase of sales in home computers, more people seem to be engaged in these types of games. Violent video games have also been made more graphic in their portrayals of violence (McCormick, 2001). The features of these games also include screams from victims, recoil from gun shooting, writhing victims, blood splatter from victims, as well as flying and severed body parts. The players also have options in terms of weapons to use including grenades, machine guns, flame throwers, rail guns, sniper rifles, and similar weapons (McCormick, 2001). As more improvements in gaming have been introduced in recent years, the clamour for further improvements seems to be detected from the gamers. And the gaming companies are ready to comply with these demands. With these gaming activities, concerns have been forwarded on the fact that violence in video games seem to be desensitizing the gamers to violence and death, possibly making it easier for them to commit acts of violence in the future (McCormick, 2001). It is easy enough to understand these views especially with the actual reports involving children and adolescents who are re-enacting or testing what they have been playing in their video games (Dill, 1998). On the other hand, others argue that the act of playing a game, even if it is very realistic is not immoral because in the first place, the game is far from real. What matters in the end are the real actions of real humans in the real world (McCormick, 2001). Acting violent in a video game is not equivalent to actually acting violent in real life. The simulation of acts which represent morally objection able activities is not per se a morally objectionable activity because giving moral credit in such a way would be tantamount to giving moral credit or passing judgment over an actor playing a murderous role in a movie (McCormick, 2001). Based on these considerations, the issue on whether or not playing video games is morally objectionable is now a valid moral consideration. There are various ways to evaluate the issue. One way would be through the utilitarianism moral theory. The utilitarian theory highlights the fact that people object to video games because of its consequences and because these video games seem to contribute to the tragic outcomes seen in school shootings or violent altercations among adolescents (Durkin and Lowe, 1998). Under normal conditions, playing video games is not a dangerous act on its own. Based on Bentham’s utilitarianism, acts are good so long as they ensure benefits to people, and they are bad to the extent that they cause harm to other people (Mill, 1998). Based on these general ideas, utilitarianism may argue that violent video games are morally unacceptable because they increase the risk for harm. However, this increased risk of harm cannot be the only consideration for utilitarianism (Mill, 1998). Based on utilitarian grounds, the negative impact of the violent games has to outweigh the positive impact. So far however, the positive impact of video games seems to be outweighing its negative