Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Moral philosophy question about child killing in video games

  1. #1 Moral philosophy question about child killing in video games 
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Hey!

    In a game im playing, children are unkillable and it is a very heated debate as to why it should/shouldnt be allowed. I find it strange that a violent video game which allows killing people would differensiate between age, as time is the only factor seperating a child from an old person. Making them unkillable is in my opinion more immoral than not allowing it. Because it is a discrimination and basicly the developers are saying "Age dictates that this is to immoral to be allowed" but that is impossible to imply without also saying that people are worth more/less based on their abilities, gender, sex and other things just like age. Meaning, in my opinion, that not allowing them to be killed equally with mature people is a social darwinistic facist move. What are good arguments for and against this stance by the developers? I find it strange that a child is immortal while grown ups can be killed, as if moralism was a measurable tool to be used at whim here, when again, TIME is the only factor seperating a child from a grown up.


    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Perhaps no points should be awarded for killing. This has implications for porn, too, after all TIME is all separating child from adult. So should adult movies feature children?

    In reality, murder of child or police officer is viewed as especially egregious crime.


    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    I find it understandable.

    Video games where you kill people want to conceal the degenetate nature of seeking entertainement by pretending to kill other human beings, which is competely logical (which in a barbaric society is considered totally normal, like Romans might have brought the kids with popcorn see christians torn appart in the colliseum as good wholesome family fun, to them its completely normal they cant see that its sick).


    So they have to fabricate a reason to kill other human beings, ex:"we kill them over there so that we dont have to kill them over here", or "their flag is of a different color! kill hem all!", "theyre evil doers", etc, in ways that match the social conditioning that allows the population to justify killing and wars(or ride on the conditioning that already exists in society). As a result, Its more difficult to pretend the game is not a degenerate sociopathic aberration when the victims are kids because its harder to pretend theres a non-bullshit reason for it, its a hard sell to spin that the children represent a threat.


    This being said, Ive not been able to shake off my conditioning so I too enjoy the occasional videogames where you shoot or cleave "enemies", monsters, aliens, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Rules of war are kind of peculiar. It seems that war is recognized as a necessary means of settling disputes, but at the same time people want to limit the horrors of war, so the combatants agree to certain limits.

    The prohibition of killing children has not been universal throughout history - for example children were slaughtered along with everybody else in the battle of Jericho, as described in the Bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    My view is simple. It is not killing children that is wrong. It is killing humans.

    I rather like Fred Saberhagen's "berserker' stories. These are set in the future, and the enemy is a bunch of killer machines. Highly sophisticated. This means that the heroes can show their courage in fighting non humans - non sapient machines.


    If a video game is designed which involves killing an enemy, then why not make the enemy non human? eg. killer robots. Demons. Monsters. etc. In fact, many video games do just that. I would like to see human killing human games illegal.

    There was a World War II study which showed that about 85% of all soldiers in a fire fight actually fired over the heads of their enemy, or did not fire at all. Such is the 'normal' level of inhibition against human killing human. Why should we set up video games that counter that right and proper inhibition?

    Of course, since WWII, the various military operations round the world have instigated special training of soldiers to get 100% to fire at the enemy. This increases the kill rate in battle. Another result of all this is an increase in homicide rate by returned veterans.
    http://current.com/shows/vanguard/bl...ew-vietnam.htm

    Logically, teaching video game players to kill other humans in the virtual sense will probably lower their inhibitions against killing other people in real life. Not a good result!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post

    Logically, teaching video game players to kill other humans in the virtual sense will probably lower their inhibitions against killing other people in real life. Not a good result!
    It's a good result if your country is at war, and you wish to survive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Haroki

    Survival becomes less likely because of the increased homicide rate. Your country already has the developed world's highest homicide rate, at 5 to 6 killings per 100,000 people each year. (My country has about 1.2). Do you want to see it climb even higher?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Survival becomes less likely because of the increased homicide rate. Your country already has the developed world's highest homicide rate, at 5 to 6 killings per 100,000 people each year. (My country has about 1.2). Do you want to see it climb even higher?
    Well, I'm just pointing out that those homicidal skills can come in handy at times. You may see things differently during times of all out war.

    Do you think you will eliminate all wars? The only way to do that will be to have some kind of centralized world government where nation states are outlawed. Then, what you have is a police state. The police in your police state would still have to be trained killers to put down any possible uprisings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    Harold

    War is slowly reducing anyway. This reduction would actually be a lot faster if the USA administration received a massive kick in the fundamentum, and learned from it! Apart from wars in which the USA is the prime instigator, the only real wars left are minor brush wars and a few civil wars. Suggest you watch Prof. Stephen Pinker on the history of violence.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

    Homicidal skills learned by the general public are not desirable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    We are mammals, and most to all social mammals, do (not) kill or allow any harm to come to infants or juviniles in their familly group. But I heard about wild chimps killing then eating a juvenile chimp from a rival group.

    The reason you cant kill children in the video game is because the men and women that created and programed the game (ARE NOT CHIMPS) they are homo sapiens.

    (the animals that programed the video game, are genetically programed to not kill young animals of their species.) And I am very glad they are.

    I can see a little hope in the world at this moment.
    Last edited by chad; December 10th, 2011 at 04:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    (the animals that programed the video game, are genetically programed to not kill young animals of their species.)
    I doubt that very much, given that people have killed and do kill young of their species, under various circumstances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Yes wild chimps, attack, kill and eat, juvinile chimps from other rival groups.

    And in times of war humans (sometimes) do simular things. Theres verse in the old testament thats speaks of one of Moses generals disobeying orders,when attacking a village and he only killed the men, then he marched the females and kids back to the Jewish camp. Then some one at camp ordered all of them killed.


    I guess a better way of phrasing it is "some humans are geneticly programed to not kill young humans." I think the above general was.

    Now we fight with bombs and machine guns, so its hard to pick out a specific target in the crowd. Its hard to be a gentleman in todays wars.


    In our homo sapien packs or groups, there usually seems to a leader. I wish all people on Earth had a rule, that only people who are geneticlly programed to (not kill young people, and to have some honor) could be our leaders. That way men like Hitler could never come to power. And do the nightmare things they do.

    Its so crazy how almost everyone in germany joined hitler (my great grand mother refused to hiel hitler, but the ss was too busy at the time and let her go, but the rest of my family there seemed to go along 100% with him) .

    In ancient America and Europe they used to kill young virgins to try to make it rain. (a sacrafice to god)

    In those days some one stood up and said "lets kill this 15 year to make it rain" and everyone joined in. There were not enough decent people there to stop it. Its scary what a leader can do with a group of homo sapiens. (one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.)

    now to try to answer the other guys question, the reason you cant kill young people in the game is because,

    There was a group of people that made the rules to the game. And perhaps one or more of them, was geneticlly programed to not kill young humans, so they programed the game to not allow the killing of young people.


    I dont like crowds, and I am only confortable with small groups, and with people I know. So I guess I watch things from the outside.


    I notice how women make me comb my hair, and keep clean. If no women were around I would be very dirty, and my beard would be dragging on the ground.


    So the presence of woman, makes me clean myself. I suspect bi-sexual males in a group of males, will trigger simular behavior, to keep keep all of us clean, in the event no females are around.


    My point is this, people effect other people. And I just re-read your post, to try to get inside your mind, while I imagined you in war with a machine gun with kids around, and you did not shoot them, I do not want to imply you were a young person killer.


    But I am glad as hell that game does not allow the killing of children, because if all games allowed the killing of kids, this might cause the human sub-conscience of every one that was killing kids in games to think this is some how o.k.


    then game players would be a pack (group) of homo sapiens, who in some way thought it was o.k to kill kids.


    Everyone with hitler and every one with the ancient rain makers, sure thought it was o.k. to kill kids. And its stupid, but humans have to always remember and say, "it is not o.k. to kill kids." So recently Hitler and most of Germany were horibily killing kids in the 1940's.

    I think they should have laws were you cant kill kids in video games. I do not like the idea of a future were all american gamers are killing kids in video games, and them being a group of homo sapiens whose subconscience minds thinks in some way its o.k. to kill kids.

    This could only make it eazyer for some one like hitler to be come leader.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    We can use game to practice our morbid desire (killing child, rape, stalking person and then kill them), and when we are ready we can try it in real world. Although games tried to be as realistically as possible there are certain aspect of human lives that games cannot simulate: eg: social repercussion, people screaming (a genuine scream), and the fact that AI are stupid. I like the simulation concept of games (we can learn to fly, to drive, to shot, to stalk, and to learn military skills with games) but to include such morbid desire is bad...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I guess a better way of phrasing it is "some humans are geneticly programed to not kill young humans."
    How do you know this? Can you tell the difference between genetically programmed behavior and learned behavior?
    My point is this, people effect other people.
    Yes. That would be learned behavior, not genetically programmed behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Male primates are typically tolerant of infants and juvinilese (I heard a scientist say this.) I would suspect this is not learned behavior.

    If a male chimp is eating a banana and a young chimp trys to take it, he will not care. But if a adult trys to take his banana there will be a fight.

    I noticed young lion following a large lion, and biting his tail, when the adult got tired of it , the adult gently brushed it away, if an adult lion did that to another adult , it would not be gentle, and teeth and claws would be out.


    And I have 2 young nephews, and they kick me, shoot me with (airsoft guns), wet me with water hoses,guns and cups) , chase me, destroy my property, and follow me ex. ex. ex.
    And I dont get mad, but if a adult male did that I would be very upset.

    The above lists 3 diferent species all letting juviniles do things to them, that they would not allow adults to do to them.
    Could all 3 cases be learned behavior ? I dont think so.

    Certain social animals must be geneticly programed to allow young of their species to play without getting hurt. ( I heard that play was actually practice, a deer plays by running (practicing to run from a wolf), a lion plays by wrestling and play biting (practing to take down a zebra).

    I think many social animals are geneticly programed to not care when young of their species are playing and bothering them. If adults reacted the same way to young animals, as adults it would stop the young animals from learning life skills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Chad,
    That lion playing with the cub was probably the cub's father. It is well know that a lion who takes over a pride will kill the offspring of the previous king of the pride. Domestic cats which have gone feral will do the same thing. The behavior of the chimps toward the young of their own band is different than it would be toward strange chimps. As you have already pointed out, chimps at war with neighboring band will kill the young of the enemy band.

    In humans it is even somewhat of a cliche that parents treat stepchildren worse than their own. Did you ever hear the expression "beat him like a redheaded stepchild?" Then there is the story of Cinderella who was mistreated by her stepmother and ugly stepsisters. How many times to you hear news stories about somebody beating their girlfriend's baby to death? Usually, the guy is not the father of the child.

    Another error you are making is to assume that human behavior is the same as animals. Humans have higher intelligence and language ability which allows them to function with learned behavior much more than animals which operate more on instinct.

    These learned behaviors can change much quicker than instinctive behaviors. To see this, you only have to look at behaviors in different cultures and read historical accounts of behavioral norms that are much different than in our current society. I have already pointed out one example - the Biblical account of the battle of Jericho.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Hey!

    In a game im playing, children are unkillable and it is a very heated debate as to why it should/shouldnt be allowed. I find it strange that a violent video game which allows killing people would differensiate between age, as time is the only factor seperating a child from an old person. Making them unkillable is in my opinion more immoral than not allowing it. Because it is a discrimination and basicly the developers are saying "Age dictates that this is to immoral to be allowed" but that is impossible to imply without also saying that people are worth more/less based on their abilities, gender, sex and other things just like age. Meaning, in my opinion, that not allowing them to be killed equally with mature people is a social darwinistic facist move. What are good arguments for and against this stance by the developers? I find it strange that a child is immortal while grown ups can be killed, as if moralism was a measurable tool to be used at whim here, when again, TIME is the only factor seperating a child from a grown up.
    Is this a confession?


    Do you know the difference between eating something and rationalising the taste?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    To be honest I replyed to this post originally, out of (sub-conscience) anger of people speaking about killing young homo sapiens, my original post was basicly done to call the asker of the question a (chimp).

    But after re-reading his question, I figured I was wrong about my judgement of him, ............... So I am Sorry.

    Basicly all I am saying is that social mammals that live in close and social packs, will be genically programed to (not) hurt the young of their pack. The adults in these groups will allow young animals in (their) pack, to get away with behavior that they would never allow another adult in the group to get away with.

    But I guess I should have used the word (stable) pack.

    Yes when a male is replaced in a lion pride, the new leader male will kill the young lions that are not his.

    But after the male lion kills the young that are not his, the pack will become a (stable) pack.

    After he kills the young that are not his, this group of (adult lions) will let the young lions, follow them, take their food, and bite them (WITHOUT GETTING UPSET). Were as if a adult lion in this group, went up to another adult in the group, and did the above behavior there would be a big and very real fight.

    And this group of lions will go on to (as a group) protect the young lions and allow them to do anything, without adults getting upset by their behavior . (Untill the day comes that the head male is replaced.) When that new male is replaced, the group will once again become (unstable), the newest male will kill the young, and after this it will become a stable group again. (that protects and does not hurt young lions for their bad behavior.)




    Human behavior and other animal behavior is the (same) to a very large degree. We both breath, eat, drink, sleep, use the bath room, reproduce, seek warmth in the cold, we blink our eyes, we search for food, we choose a place to sleep, we fight and we flee. A human or any other mammal does not have to be taught to do these things, because we are genically programed to do them.

    Humans do have the highest inteligence, but what does that mean ??

    Look at human history and its the same thing chimps would have done, except we have more complex tools and better communication.

    And your correct about the (learned behavior) thing. I never really thought about it before. And to me when you stated the step-child theory, it shows that humans act like lions in a way, once again.

    And I quess your right about human learned behavior changing much quicker that instinctive behavior. I heard a theory one time that if you, took 100 young humans and raised them in a movie set were everyone was worshiping coke bottles as God, (most) of those 100 humans would grow up to worship coke bottles as god.

    It makes me think how quick learned behavior in culture can change.

    At times in old Europe they liked their woman 300 pounds , but in America today its much much much less.

    There are places on Earth today were a man does not want a woman to be his wife, unless her lower lip is split with a 6 inch dish in it.

    But here today in America it is the opposite.

    What will human culture do next ? looking back at history , it could be anything.......................................... ...... (and you might agree.)

    But no matter what our cultures are doing, we will be eating, drinking, sleeping, looking for food, looking for a good place to sleep, using the rest room, blinking our eyes, fleeing and breathing ....................... just like all the other animals.

    Chad.




    I quess in our human world, learned behavior could be more important than our instinctive behavior.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Central Issues of moral philosophy
    By Booms in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 5th, 2010, 06:00 PM
  2. Video Games?
    By Infrasound in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 6th, 2008, 06:38 AM
  3. How many of you play video games?
    By Quantime in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: March 7th, 2008, 12:16 PM
  4. Are video games ruining kids social lives?
    By Quantime in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 8th, 2007, 06:05 PM
  5. racing games freeze with a loud beep with 2 video cards
    By Bloodling in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •