As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is the argument more valid as video game technology improves and the simulation of reality more seamless? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?
According to Plato's argument, Governor Schwarzenegger's restriction of violent video games would be justified. One of Plato's arguments about why Homer should not be studied is that he depicts immoral actions in his stories, specifically the gods acting immorally. Mortal humans will see these supposedly perfect gods acting immorally and believe that it is acceptable. Therefore, Homer's stories influence the community to act immorally. I think this argument has some legitimacy; witnessing violent actions in video games can make people more sensitized to violence. However, I believe that there is a flaw in Plato's solution. However, there is a significant flaw in both Plato's argument and thus the restriction. Plato believes that all mortal men that read these stories will think that these actions are acceptable. This is not the case; most people will have enough knowledge to learn from these characters instead of acting like them. Since there is both knowledge to be gained and other positive messages in Homer's works, people can obtain good from reading these. Therefore, just because a small few will be impacted negatively, not everyone should have to suffer. Instead, the proper solution is pairing these readings with teachings about what actions are immoral and moral throughout the book and the lessons to learn. This applies to the restrictions since there are good aspects of video games that everyone can experience. Video games serve as a method of connecting with people from all other the world, giving millions of people something in common to bond over. Once again, just because a small number of people will be negatively affected by the violence doesn't mean that all people should be allowed to enjoy violent video games. Instead, it should be the responsibility of guardians to monitor the effects of violence on their children. I do not buy the argument that video games are more seamless with reality, giving it more of an impact since the only difference between a book and a video game is that you visualize the story of a book and watch a video game; this would have a small attempt since humans are very talented at imagining things. Therefore this factor doesn't make video games too much more accurate. Second, in a video game, you control a character, and in a book, you follow the story of a character. This arguably could have a decent impact; however, if you can separate immoral actions in a book without blindly following everything in the book, you would be able to handle the slight increase in reality that comes with video games. Therefore, the slightly improved reality should not increase the impact.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Plato, a case can be made to prohibit video games and other forms of entertainment that may violate societal "standards." Similar to Governor Schwarzenegger, Socrates believes that our youth retain much of the information they learn in the beginning of their lives as their minds are young and sensitive, absorbing "every impression stamped upon them (71)." Using this premise, Socrates uses Homer, a poet, who uses many articles of violence, scheming, and battling within his poetry. Whether or not Homer's intention is allegorical, his writing can negatively influence the youth according to Socrates, meaning he has every right to ban it. The same argument then applies to technology driven video games made for teens. When kids play video games, they see blood, gore, and language that some may view unsuitable for certain audiences. Nevertheless, there's a major flaw in Socrates' argument; that he himself, in addition to all of his companions grew up reading Homer and turned out just fine. Socrates believes that knowledge is power. Knowledge also has no filter. Imagine teaching American History but not including slavery, or mentioning Susan B Anthony and the suffrage movement without mentioning Sojourner Truth and the racial undertones behind the movement. Socrates was eventually killed for corrupting the youth with his ideas. He would often consume alcohol, party, and talk about many controversal topics with these children. I would argue that Socrates here would say that free will exists, and that he did not force any of his followers hands. Sounds similar to many video game developers. Plenty of people learn and consume information that we may disagree with, but if I'm not allowed to consume the content in the first place without a subjective censorship of what's right and wrong, what's the point of gaining knowledge. All in all, there's no causation between immorality and the content a youth may consume.
ReplyDelete