Slashdot Mirror
The Moral Responsibility of Game Creators
Gamasutra.com has reactions from another provocative question of the week. The topic this time was "Do game creators have any moral responsibilities in teaching values to their audience?" There were many responses on both sides of the issue. From the article: "A resounding NO. Do writers have that same responsibility? Actors? What other limitations would we put on them and our freedom of expression, in order to accomplish that lofty goal? Just ask Jerry Falwell, or the embittered ghost of Senator McCarthy for your answer... NO. Leave the morality lessons to the parents and the priests. They are quite good at their jobs. -Anonymous"
Do artists have a moral responsibility?
Do authors have a moral responsibility?
Do writers have a moral responsibility?
They do if they choose to have one. Period. End of story.
The game creators have the same moral responsibility as any other media, which is nearly none except to the "market". That means whatever moral code (or lack thereof) will be reflected in the product they product. It is up to the market to the determine the worth of the product in the greater context. If the game has moral value *and* provides a worthwhile experience it will do well with specific market segments. A game with no moral compass but a good game experience will do well, albeit in a different market segment. If the game provides no value as a game, it should fail. Why do people expect this to be any different from book, film, music or the more traditional arts? From what I have seen there are quite a few successful games that I won't bring into my home. As there are with books, films and music. (Both from a "too harsh" to "too preachy" standpoint). If people go to such extremes that they cater to an incredibly narrow market segment they will still potentially be successful in the niche they choose.
What I think this question is really trying to say: "Do we (for some hypothetical 'we') have the power to cause game developers to bend to our moral values and force them to teach what we believe." I hope the answer is a resounding no to that, no matter who is chosen for 'we'.
Sig under construction since 1998.
I think everyone who contributes something to the general society/culture needs to consider the effect that contribution might have. I think parents and priests work on a smaller but more intimate scale then artists, sports stars, etc.
It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
Leave the morality lessons to the parents because they do a good job? I'd say that really depends on the parent, and a fair number don't do a good job. That doesn't give the government a free pass to define morality, though.
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
forced morality has always driven me nuts. some people, particularly those in high power, think they have the right to tell me and others what is and isn't wrong. quite frankly it makes me sick, because the people who force morality upon others are slimy hypocrites. what if i became president and deemed that christianity was morally wrong, then enlisted the pocket senators to enact laws banning the practice of that religion.
look, fuckers, we fled england for a reason. we wanted freedom, and force morality is just another form of shackles regardless of the end. the means are simply not just.
- tristan
A label that lets a concerned parent make a choice pretty much covers the moral responsibility. Even if we were to hold games to the same standards that movies and television are held to we can't expect any more than that.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
It is improper to ask if game designers should be conveying moral values through their games, because they can not avoid doing so. Every game, be it Duke Nukem or Myst, orginates from the morality of its designers. They can not avoid it because they must make choices about the plot and player's possible decisions that can not be made in any other way.
You can ask if which moral values are appropriate to include in games, and the answer would be that it is not possible to make any restrictions in this area without total censorship of all games produced. It is already being done in part through the ratings system. Whether it would be possible to impose further restrictions is somewhat doubtful. (though becoming less so every year)
Do they have a MORAL responsibility? Oh man there's a can of worms! The problem is whose moral standard are we talking about?
:-)
I like what Francis Schaeffer had to say "Art reflects culture". Art is a better reflector of culture more than history books, marketing campaigns or clever political speeches.
So that begs the question: does art LEAD culture? I think most people here would like to say no because it would imply moral responsibiliy. But it's like trying to nail Jello to a tree, once you say someone is morally reponsible, if they don't want the responsibility they can slip away without a whole lot of effort.
Okay moderators, mod me down
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Ideally, we all have a moral obligation to uphold and to further positive moral values. Obviously, people disagree widely about these values, especially in the particulars. Furthermore, it ought be understood as a moral obligation, and not a legal one. Not because you can't legislate morality (in fact, we can, do, should, and must if law is to be meaningful), but because not all morality ought be legislated.
Canthros
Yes, everyone has a moral responsibility to themselves and those around them. But it's not government's duty to enforce the responsibility we all have.
Let's allow society to figure it out. I am very picky about what games and movies and TV shows I watch. I only choose entertainment from those who understand their moral responsibilities. Everyone else is kept out of my home and out of my head.
I'm going to advocate that people should be morally responsible, but it is morally IRRESPONSIBLE for me to enforce my viewpoints at the point of a gun. That's not the way Jesus worked.
So let's keep government out of this, because we can all handle it on our own.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
-I want freedom of speech... but I don't want to be responsible for the effect my words and deeds have on others-.
lets be realistic with rights come responsibilities. If you want to reach a mass public audience, you could at least have the decency to consider the impact your ideas and products would have. Do you have some sort of incredible obligation to only make your games or art or whatever a certain way so as to satisfy some traditional moral standard? of course not.... But let's try consider the good of the world when we do things (not that video games necessarily should be designed to be good for the world). I don't think manhunt or BMXXX really did the world any good (more than that, they are frightening examples of what bad things human beings are capable of doing or making when they set there mind to it). They certainly have "the right" to make games like that, but wouldn't some moral considerations be nice? I get just as angry about the bible-toting, video-game-banning, harry-potter-is-of-the-devil-shouting mobs of people as anyone does. They turn questions of intent and desire into dogma. Into right and wrong. and that is stupid. however, People, lets at least realize what we do affects others and consider it when making art or music or games. You have the privellege of free speech, maybe you could balance that out with some healthy responsibility. Moral lessons? probably not, but.... RESPONSIBILITY.
p.s. please don't accuse me of thinking doom or quake caused school shootings etc. that is not what I am getting at. we could benefit from a further ingrained, accurate sense of right and wrong in our society.
The government, that is who. All legislation ends up legislating morality.
"The last time someone tried to put a hold on how people lived, and should live, ended up shooting himself with a luger during a board meeting."
Sorry, that is what EVERY government does when you think about it. Not just that german with the silly 1/4-comb mustache you are thinking of. Go to your local law library and you will find shelves full of record of how government puts a hold on how people live. That is what government is all about. Is all government "Hitlers"? No. Does government legislate action limit how people live and legislate morality? Just about always.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Don't take the absence of any moral obligation as prohibition.
In other words, just because a game designer/movie director/author/actor/... is not obligated to place any moral values into their story does not mean they should be prohibited from doing so if they so choose.
For example - I like the Myth series by Robert Lynn Asprin, precisely because RLA does put good "life lessions" into the stories.
Too many slashbots will jump on this story saying "Yeah, those bastards ought not be allowed to put their morality into their work!"
When the real point is "They ought not be REQUIRED to put SOMEBODY ELSE'S morality into their work."
www.eFax.com are spammers
Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their influence on every single individual they come into contact with. That is why every individual should do their best to live up to a high moral code. After all, we're all created in the image of God and were created to live up to His example of righteous living and sinless nature. We just failed in the process, but it need not always be thus. :) We can overcome. In the meantime there is grace, and always room for improvement, but never room to shirk our duty or responsibility to be a good example to others.
:)
OK, how's that for an answer? You asked for my opinion.
Games are a part of culture and as such reflect all kinds of aspects of that culture. That includes the representation of concepts of morality, renderings that run contrary to the accepted value system, as well as work that exists outside of any recognizable morality system. Games reflect the interests and desires of our culture.
Because games are both the "output" of our creative people, as well as a kind of cultural "input" for all people, they should effectively considered to be in the same category as literature or art.
Does an artist or writer have a moral obligation to reinforce the value system of her society? Does she have an obligation to teach people about critical thoughts of that system? No, there are not, and must not, be any moral or ($entity forbid) legal obligations for a content creator to take a specific stance toward accepted social values.
Seriously, who comes up with stuff like this? If you don't like the content that's out there, create your own and see how many fans you get. This is a frigging free society, or is it - ?
Buwahahah! Scuse me while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard and monitor... Did the person saying that bother reading the paper, current events, or oh - follow history, even a little bit? You know, pesky things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem, ad naseum... Sure there's priests with good intentions, but to leave morality in hands of people who ignore science, the fossil record, the laws of physics, and believe in magic (virgin births, coming back from the dead, walking on water?), and are highly vested in their own organization's power, is folly.
As for people who think morality only stems from religion, esp Christianity -- you need to go back and read the pre-Socratics for starters.
This is not flamebait, I'm being completely serious. I am utterly annoyed with the notion that morality is somehow owned by priests and organized religion, or that it didn't exist before the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam)
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Long ago, in an Internet far, far away (Compuserve), a game company that sold an air combat simulator floated the idea of allowing all human figures to be "strafe-able" (e.g., noncombatant civilian vacationers on a beach). The overwhelming response from the players was "That's sick! Don't you dare!" These days I hear that capping innocents is one of the hilarious features of programs like GTA. How times change...
Doesn't everyone have a moral responsibility for everything they do?
I believe game developers (and anyone else for that matter) have a moral responsibility to not teach children (or anyone else) "bad" values. Having said that, I find it unlikely that any games I've seen, even violent ones, teach "bad" values. I think people are pretty good about separating fantasy from reality.
I could, however, imagine a game that, especially if targeted at young children, would at least confuse the understanding of right and wrong. I believe it would be immoral to release such a game.
On the other hand, I do not believe that game developers have a moral obligation to teach/promote "good" values, although its great if they do so. Parents, other relatives, teachers, civic leaders, etc. do have that obligation, though.
BTW, I believe that there are universal goods and universal bads. I also believe that there is plenty that falls in a gray area in between.
Each new generation will try to find their own way in life. This is nothing new. What is new that each new generation in the last two centuries has some amazing new toys to do it with. Before the technology of the father was the same as of the son and for that matter the same as that of the grandfather.
Nowadays there are huge differences. My parents age had computers but they were like power stations. Used somewhere to do very important work but not something you ever expected to be working with. The idea that a major part of your freetime would be spend with it is alien to them. Same as say being glued to the tv was to their grandparents. Then again we can't see why our grandparents went to the movies to watch the news.
Different generations. Different technologies. Different ways of spending our free time.
The problem is that apart from not being able to see the value in the others generation toy is that each of the toys also has different morals.
A feature film can do with just 1 murder and last 1.5 hours. TV you then already got 2 programs so 2 murders. A session of half-life or whatever and 1.5 hours will get you a body count that would shock a WW2 veteran.
There are problems in the world but the world has always had problems. Youth gangs are nothing new but that doesn't make for gripping headlines. The media has for more influence in making us scared of loss of morals then in installing any morals.
So do I think game creators should apply morals to their games?
Well yes. I would dearly love to play RPG's were your moral choices really affected the game. An evil character will find progress easier and faster but pay the price of being hunted by the goverment and generally not being trusted by either lawfull and unlawfull people. But also were being a good character is HARD. Real hard. Of course this requires rpg's to get a decent economy first but lets make being good be something more then giving a few credits to some random npc when you are swimming in cash (my playstyle means I never spend on med packs and sell the med packs I find).
But as a final note I do remember on recent racing game that was set in cities in wich civilians could be run over. Not for points or anything just that they were impossible to avoid. That I found totally ammoral. It also just ruined any fun. Sure it was a console port but wouldn't the game have been more fun if you had to swerve to avoid hitting people. Maybe that level of driving is to hard with a gamepad.
But no. Games can't teach people morals. At a fundamental level I don't think morals can be thought unless at a very young age. Either you have learned that hurting other people is bad as a small child or you haven't.
Then again we are all immoral anyway. We are here wasting resources on meaningless drivel about games while childeren are starving. How moral is that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
When will this generation of lazy parents start actually teaching morals to their kids? It's rather poor of them to expect games developers to do it for them. And even if developers started adding morals to games, I'm sure parents would still sue them when their kids go on killing sprees by saying they didn't teach the "right" morals.
About 110 comments in and not one person really has a good concept of what morality really is. I'm currently writing a book about the subject, so I have a good idea what I'm talking about.
Real morality, is how what you do affects other people. Simple as that. (And that is modified by your intentions.)
Game design, like all art, is a VERY amoral activity. Amoral isn't necessarly a bad thing. It just means that it's fairly neutral. Because what you do on screen doesn't really affect other people, it's not intended to. The intention of GTA isn't for you to go out and kill people, for example. It simply is.
There is pieces of art that ARE intended to have such an affect on people. Usually this takes the form of overtly racist propaganda. This is the sort of thing you can judge on a moral basis, but to say that game designers have a moral responsibility?
No, they don't. It's nice when games have a good moral message, of course. But to be frank, in today's day and age, being morally neutral puts you ahead of the pack.