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.
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
I don't have any morals, you insensitive clod!
Now excuse me, I'm busy playing GTA, drinking tequila, calling a 1-900 number while a hardcore porn movie is playing in the background.
But keep in mind that these contributions aren't forced on to the society.
I think that when it comes to video games, a balance is required. I think that Mortal Kombat, for example, was not a GREAT contribution to society. In fact, it was pretty gratuitous in many respects, but it wasn't forced on you. Since it wasn't exactly wholesome, it was the guardians'/parents' responsibility to see whether or not their children should play/see it.
It's just like with R rated movies: It's up to the guardian to decide if the children can see them.
I just pooped your party.
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
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Morals I've learned from video games:
1) Killing people is bad.
2) Killing people is good.
3) Killing zombies is great.
4) Killing zombies is bad if they've gone through substantial character development.
5) Sacrificing yourself so that the team can make it over the lava flow to fight the Bad Guy is good.
6) Something about not sucking the energy out of the Earth to power your city.
7) Stealing is good, unless the chest is booby-trapped.
8) Feed your pets well, or they will abandon you forever.
That should be enough to get anyone through life, no?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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.
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
And remember: If you find pills lying around in streets or hidden passages, just eat'em. They are definitely good for you.
- Peter Brodersen; professional nerd