Morality and gaming
Why banning realistic depictions of war in games is wrong
The BBC reported on Monday that British Defense Secretary Liam Fox has continued to defend comments he made calling for a retail ban of the newest Medal of Honor game. The publishers of the game, Electronic Arts, have defended it and accused Fox of portraying its content unfaithfully.
Fox denounced the game on Sunday, saying it was “shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban against British soldiers.” Fox also made an appeal to patriotism, arguing that this new installment of the franchise is a “thoroughly un-British game.”
His comments can be seen in the context of a larger crusade against objectionable content in videogames that has involved some of the best-selling games of all time, including the Grand Theft Auto series and the newest installment of the Call of Duty series.
Arguments against these games usually claim that their content is immoral, obscene, or in some other way objectionable. Additionally, this claim is often accompanied by the idea that the interactive aspect of a game has a special persuasive power.
Enabling a player to kill innocents, for example, is seen as a dangerous act because it encourages or normalizes that behavior. If that were true, it would be a good argument against the objectionable content of these games. If there were persuasive evidence to suggest that playing Grand Theft Auto significantly increases the chances that people will wantonly mow down innocents, that would be an excellent reason to ban the game or call on retailers to do so.
However Dr. Fox takes a different stance. His argument is based on the idea that the game should be withheld from the public solely on the grounds that it is obscene. He believes that “recreating” the acts of the Taliban against the British is morally repugnant and thus unacceptable.
The question is, does the game offend people (hurt, disgust, or shock them) in such a way that it should be withheld. It doesn’t. If someone objects to the game’s content, they shouldn’t buy it. If they catch a glimpse of it by accident, they’re free to look away. While the game clearly offends the sensibilities of Dr. Fox, no one is forcing him to play it.
New media has always held a special and frightening power in society, and public outcry against videogames is not altogether surprising. But this game does not stretch the limits of free expression. It does not even aim to shock (unlike many other games), but rather to portray war authentically. In fact, its graphic content could have special value because it strives to be an honest portrayal of ongoing events. Additionally, a game that enables a player to take on the role of a hated enemy might be a good thing for people to experience. The realistic features that make the game objectionable to some people are the same features that make it worth making.
If he is offended by the game or finds it distasteful, Fox is free to say so. But to call for a retail ban invokes a stronger idea, because it is as if Fox has decided the merit of the game for all of Britain. Fox is wrong to use social mores as a means of limiting speech. Let consumers decide.
-Ethan
Image used under a Creative Commons Attribution License from Flickr user Brandon Motz
Related posts:
- Fighting on a virtual battlefield
- What morality “means”
- The debate over net neutrality
- Cash for Morality
- More on war games
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
