Simulated Killing

Simulated Killing

1. What is simulated killing?

   • Simulated killing is the dramatization of killing within a fictional context e.g. in video games, films, plays
   • It is a fictional enactment of killing that the audience or gamer can see and hear.

2. Problems with simulated killing

   • Simulated killing can lead to some being concerned about the effects of simulated killing both on the people involved and on how they then treat other people in real life
     • Increased risk of: killing, aggressive behaviour more generally, other forms of antisocial behaviour, e.g. gamers’ being less responsive to others’ distress, or changes in gamers’ attitudes towards violence in general

3. How the three theories respond to simulated killing

   • Utilitarianism
     • Rule Utilitarianism
       • Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures can be applied to the concept of simulated killing. Childish pleasures, such as those involved in simulated killing, will no count as higher pleasures. Hence we may think worse of a person who engages in such activity, but we will not condemn the activity itself.
       • Mill's Harm Principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercise over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"; if proven to harm others, utilitarians would ban simulated killing
     • Simulated killing will only be wrong if, on balance, it decreases rather than increases the happiness of the majority.
     • Act Utilitarianism
       • An Act Utilitarian considers the consequences of an action as well as the tendency or probability of the action having certain concequences. In the case of simulated killing, the probability that simulated killing will increase actuall immoral behaviour is highly unlikely. Therefore, the problem of simulated killing causing one to treat others in a more aggressive and harmful way as depicted in the games does not stand and as a result is an argument that is discarded by Act Utilitarians.
       • An Act Utilitarian would look to the Hedonic Calculus to come to a judgement on whether or not simulated killing is morally acceptable.
   • Deontological response to simulated killing
     • The Categorical Imperative - device to tell between right and wrong, by universalising the maxim behind our action, we can see if the action can be carried out consistently and without contradiction. So the question is can we consistently will 'that everyone takes part in simulated killing'?
       • Once again the answer is dependent on the psychological evidence, if it can be shown that participating in simulated killing is wrong then it would not pass the test of the categorical imperative as we would be willing a world whereby people are morally obliged to become more violent.
       • Overexposure damages capacity to exercise good will. Kant: murder is wrong since it's irrational/violates formulations of Categorical Imperative, not because it causes pain
     • We have imperfect duty to not participate/observe simulated killing for pleasure; no rational being would want to derive satisfaction from immoral actions. However, •If it illustrates higher moral purpose, it's acceptable (deontological rather than teleological)
   • Virtue ethicist's response to simulated killing
     • if the act of participating in violent video games or watching violent films leads to the development of negative and unfavourable character traits then simulated killing would be wrong. if it prevents the acquisition/development of virtuous traits and the achievement of eudaimonia then it is seen as morally wrong.