The Gamer’s Dilemma

How We Evaluate the Morality of Actions in Games and other Media

The Gamer’s Dilemma is a philosophical issue introduced by Morgan Luck in 2009, which addresses the ethical discrepancy between the moral intuitions people have regarding two different types of virtual actions in video games: virtual murder and virtual sexual abuse. Why do most people find violent acts like killing characters in games acceptable, but find actions like virtual sexual abuse deeply unethical, even though both types of actions are simulated and there is no real person being harmed?

Attempts to solve this dilemma:

• Real world impact. Most studies cannot find a causal connection between simulated violence and real world violence and some show it is a way to release this energy in a safer way, so as leading to less real world violence. But what about other effects? “We may not kill people because we watched Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot bad guys by the thousands. But research tells us that violent and sexual content do impact the way we behave towards others. As one neat example, a 2009 study demonstrated that exposure to gratuitous violence in either a game or a movie led to a reduced willingness to help someone who was in pain.” The real world impact theory argues against the assumption that virtual simulation of violence and sexual abuse does not have a negative psychological or social impact, and in particular that virtual sexual abuse may have an outsized real-world impact in a way that virtual violence doesn’t, perhaps because of the social acceptance of violence.
• Social acceptance theory. Society seems to lean towards being pro-violence and anti-sex (perhaps because of the need to produce soldiers and to inhibit the powerful sexual impulse). This could explain why simulated killing and murder is more socially acceptable than simulated sex (PG13 movies vs. R rated movies). Culture glorifies war but doesn’t glorify rape. While culture doesn’t glorify murder, but because of proximity to war (violence), it becomes still more acceptable than sexual abuse. Because violence is more socially accepted than sexual violence, simulated violence does not have the same taboo that simulated sexual violence has, and therefore the social (and psychological) implications and consequences differ.
• Argument from intentionality. This position argues that a different psychological state is required or arises due to engaging in simulated sexual violence than that of engaging in simulated violence in that sexual violence would activate the sexual drive in a way that other violence does not. Put another way, players would be getting off on the sexual violence in a way that players would not be getting off on the act of killing itself (the counter to this is that games like GTA that include both sexualization (killing of prostitutes for example) and the capacity for players to be getting off on the act of murder itself.

Game Philosophy

What is a Game?
— Defining by contrast: Game (play, dream) vs. real life. The playful attitude vs. the serious attitude: there is something different about the mentality of a game vs. real life
— Play vs. game: A game is formalized play
— Game features: end goals, rules, interactive, able to affect outcome, and consent
— What makes a game a game is an interactive quality (even if there is no goal in the case of just ‘playing around’). There are rules to games and play, and oftentimes there is a goal, but not always, and the interactivity almost always affects the outcome (even if the outcome is just to have had the experience of playing).
— The purpose of a game: entertainment (stress reduction), education by simulation (learning about life), therapeutic, hero’s journey, spiritual awakening
— ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ games: lack of consent, unfair, unchangeable, too focused on goal rather than journey, too high penalties (‘Saw’ or ‘Escape Room’ or ‘Squid Games’ are bad games due to either lack of consent or the penalties being too high)

Games and Society
Many animals engage in play. It’s a fundamental part of socialization. Human psychology and interaction is steeped in games. Society and culture is steeped in game mechanics. Piaget’s developmental theory included a focus on the importance of play in cognitive development. He viewed play as a means through which children learn to interact with their environment, develop problem-solving skills, and explore the roles of rules and structure. Winnicott, a psychoanalyst, saw play as crucial for mental health, creativity, and personal development. He believed that the space between reality and imagination where play occurs is essential for emotional growth and healing. Huizinga introduced the concept of Homo Ludens (the “playing man”), arguing that play is a primary and fundamental aspect of human culture. He viewed civilization as being shaped by the games and playful activities of its members. He believed that many aspects of society, including law, war, and politics, have a playful, game-like nature. Caillois, extended Huizinga’s ideas, examining how these forms of play shape culture and social order. He emphasized that play, in its various forms, is deeply embedded in societal institutions and that understanding the dynamics of games can reveal much about human interaction and social systems.

Games and Reality
In philosophy and spirituality, there is the idea that the Playful Attitude (rather than the serious attitude) is the aim of humanity, and that life can better be understood as a divine play, as a dance or some kind of borderline comedy, or epic story, rather than to be taken so literally and seriously. In philosophy, Marcuse critiqued capitalist societies for suppressing human creativity and playfulness in favor of productivity and conformity. He envisioned a liberated society where play and aesthetic enjoyment would take precedence over labor and materialism. Schiller developed the idea of the Spieltrieb (play drive), where the rational and sensual aspects of human nature come together in harmony. He believed that play was central to aesthetic experience and human freedom. My position is that it is precisely the game mechanic (particularly the element of consent) that is what justifies life.