Ethics of Computer Games

学术哲学中正在讨论的关于电脑游戏的主要道德问题之一如下：玩暴力电脑游戏在道德上有什么错误（如果有的话）？通常的方法试图通过应用规范伦理学的三种经典理论之一来回答这个问题。在这个过程中，他们都面临着荒唐的非道德主义的基本问题。根据游戏非道德主义，电脑游戏不能接受道德评估，因为它们仅仅是通过超越道德可评估现实界限的行为来定义的游戏。通常的方法受到批评，因为它们无法识别电脑游戏的内在道德问题。相反，这些方法基于这样的假设：接触电脑游戏会产生严重的负面因果影响。然而，这种效应是否真的存在值得怀疑。更一般地说，确定这种效应是否存在不是一项哲学任务，而是一项经验任务。从哲学角度来看，电脑游戏的道德可接受性问题之所以如此引人注目，是因为人们普遍的直觉是，玩某些暴力电脑游戏本质上是错误的，也就是说，无论任何假定的负面影响如何，这种活动都是错误的。这个项目的目标是引入并捍卫一个新的答案，以应对游戏性非道德主义的挑战。在此过程中，我将主张对当前辩论进行两个主要改变：1。对“道德”和“电脑游戏”含义的基本哲学反思将表明需要在多个道德维度和多个游戏维度之间进行一些基本概念区分。只有有了这样的概念区分，我们才能准确理解玩某些暴力电脑游戏有什么问题（如果有的话）。2．这些概念上的区别使得争论可以从玩电脑游戏的活动转向电脑游戏本身，即游戏作为交互式符号系统。这种观点的改变可以用“认可观点”来对抗荒唐的非道德主义。根据它，电脑游戏（作为复杂的符号系统）可以正确地接受道德评价，因为它们不仅包含不道德的表现，而且还支持不道德的世界观。

One of the main ethical questions about computer games that is being discussed within academic philosophy is the following: What – if anything – is ethically wrong about playing violent computer games? The usual approaches try to answer this question by applying one of the three classical theories of normative ethics. In the process, they are all faced with the basic problem of ludic amoralism. According to ludic amoralism, computer games cannot be subject to moral evaluation insofar as they are merely games that are defined by the act of stepping outside the boundaries of morally assessable reality.The usual approaches have been criticized because they have not been able to identify intrinsic moral problems with regard to computer games. Instead, these approaches are based on the assumption that the exposure to computer games has severe negative causal effects. However, it is questionable whether such effects really exist; and more generally, it is not a philosophical but an empirical task to establish whether such effects exist. What makes the question about the moral acceptability of computer games so compelling from a philosophical perspective is the widespread intuition that there is something intrinsically wrong about playing certain violent computer games, i.e. that there is something wrong about such an activity regardless of any putative negative effects.The goal of this project is to introduce and defend a new answer to the challenge of ludic amoralism. In the process, I will argue for two main changes to the current debate:1. A fundamental philosophical reflection on the meaning of "ethics" and "computer game(ing)" will show the need for some basic conceptual distinctions between multiple ethical as well as multiple ludic dimensions. Only with such conceptual distinctions can we have a precise understanding of the question what (if anything) is wrong about playing certain violent computer games.2. These conceptual distinctions make it possible to change the debate from the activity of playing computer games to computer games themselves, i.e. games as interactive symbol systems. This change of perspective allows to combat ludic amoralism with the “endorsement-view”. According to it, computer games (as complex symbol systems) can be rightly subject to moral evaluation insofar as they do not only contain representations of immorality but also endorse an immoral worldview.