The topic of morality in video games is one which began long before my own experiences with digital media. Even if you aren’t someone who has paid much attention to specific instances of debate, chances are you’ve heard the simple assertion that video games turn kids violent. Of course, violence isn’t the only problem most people concerned with video games bring to the table. A semi-famous FOX news panel discussion from 2007 raised concerns over the sexual content in Bioware’s Mass Effect. And even the 1978 classic arcade game, Space Invaders, was heavily criticized for its addictive properties. If these three examples are any indication of the larger attitude toward video games’ effects on morality, the consensus would appear to be overwhelmingly negative. But according to a Pew Research Center report from 2018, nearly 90% of American teens between the ages of 13 and 17 play video games of some kind. And that raises an important question. Are video games the primary catalyst for moral delinquency, or can the somehow enhance ethical development?
Do Video Games Stunt Ethical Maturity?
Admittedly, as described by a Harvard Medical School article, experts are divided on the issue, with some saying video games can impact individuals’ moral development. On the other hand, a Bournemouth University study proposes that while video games can impact a youth’s ethical development, they have little to no effect after the age of 18. Yet, for the most part, those who see no inherent moral harm within video games remain on the defensive, only going so far as to say they don’t negatively impact players. Contrary to the concerns of many individuals, there is an argument to be made that video games can be used in a way that helps players develop a more robust sense of morality. At least, in a philosophical sense, video games can be viewed more as a potential aid to moral development than a hinderance.
As a disclaimer, this is not to suggest that young children should be allowed to play any video game they please without fear of impact on their moral development. Rating systems like the ESRB exist for a reason. And it seems obvious that some games contain content which younger audiences don’t need to be exposed to.
What Hath Aristotle to do with Video Games?
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who lived in the mid-fourth century B.C. He was the tutor of Alexander the Great. But he’s most famous for establishing the Aristotelian tradition that’s still studied widely today as the framework for centuries of western thought. In other words, his ideas were essential for the development of western culture and society. A man of many ideas, Aristotle held to the notion that the primary role of art was cathartic. Now, when most people hear the word, “catharsis”, they probably think of it in terms of emotional cleansing. Something along the lines of how crying at a movie can feel good. But in Aristotelian terms, catharsis refers to feeling the correct emotions at the right time and in the right circumstances. And the way art can help with this is quite interesting.
If part of ethical development is learning to experience emotion correctly, it seems people would have to place themselves in various situations just to understand how they should feel about the things going on. Stated differently, emotional intelligence is rooted in experience. So, if a person wanted to know how they should feel when a loved-one dies, they would need to experience the death of someone close. The problem with this view is that it’s essentially wrong to be put into some situations. For example, it would never be right to participate in murder just to know you should feel disgusted by wrongful death. It would be wrong to set my neighbors house on fire to understand arson is wrong. And that’s where art comes in.
In Aristotle’s world, one of the primary art forms was enacted drama — plays. And in those plays, audiences could witness certain events carried out in a fictional environment which never would have been ethical to experience first-hand. The hallmark of a rational person, in this sense, was the ability to express emotion toward events correctly. So, the person who felt sadness at the death of a heroic character could be considered more rational than the person who felt apathetic. And in that was, they were seen as more ethically mature.
But taking this idea further, it would seem participative art would have even more of an ability to help people develop into ethically mature individuals. That is, forms of art which allow the person to make decisions that impact the art itself in some way, rather than simply observing. After all, having first-hand experience of decisions and their consequences is often a better learning experience than watching someone else do so. And jumping forward thousands of years from Aristotle, that’s exactly where video games come into the mix. Because, as many of us are well aware, games have become increasingly focused on decisions and outcomes.
Moral Decisions in Gaming
Moral alignment systems have been a part of gaming since at least the early 2000s, perhaps best seen with titles such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. In this classic RPG, true to Star Wars lore, it’s possible to make different in-game decisions that affect your light or dark side alignment. However, while the implementation of this alignment system hearkened toward a future where decisions could drastically alter the outcome of the narrative, essentially all paths led to the same place. More or less, in KOTOR, player decisions impacted the ability to use certain powers, since each force ability had an alignment toward the light or dark side. For example, a character attuned to the light side of the force would have an easier time curing wounds. However, one who had embraced the dark side would find force lightning to be a useful tool in their arsenal. So, while KOTOR implemented a very visible morality system in its player choices, those decisions failed to heavily impact the narrative elements of the game itself.
In some sense, the visibility of the morality system in KOTOR (a literal meter that showed how far the character leaned toward one side or the other) could be responsible for the lack of real feeling in the game’s alignment system. Players can experience the real weight of their in-game decisions best when the outcomes of those decisions aren’t marked as either a light or dark path. Such is the case with the Mass Effect trilogy, where choices can impact the course of the narrative immensely.
SPOILER ALERT: Perhaps the most striking instance is when Shepherd must determine whether to side with the Geth or Quarians in Mass Effect 3. If the Geth are chosen, the entire Quarian fleet is destroyed, and a companion that’s been with the player with three games kills herself. But if the player chooses to side with the Quarian fleet, another companion dies. Either way, the decision is extremely difficult, especially since the outcome can’t be discerned beforehand. Still, it can easily be inferred that whichever side is chosen will lead to a negative consequence for the other. So, this type of moral quandary presents a prime opportunity for reflection and assessment. The ability to feel through this scenario is reminiscent of the Aristotelian notion of catharsis.
Even so, with the Mass Effect decision described above, the results are almost instantaneous and allow the player to simply restart their latest save if they don’t like the outcome. More recent games have done away with this type of immediate gratification, not always letting the player know what the outcome of decisions will be. Instead, they reveal that information only when it’s too late to simply go back to the latest save point and try again. A good example is Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, one of the most recent releases in the Assassin’s Creed series. For all its flaws, it has an immersive decision scheme throughout that can lead to wildly different endings.
SPOILERS AHEAD: There are at least six decisions that must be made throughout the narrative in a specific manner to see the best ending. In one scenario, the wayward sibling is persuaded to return to the family, and in the other, the player character kills the sibling. And it is this type of morality system that seems most rewarding when it comes to ethical development.
Video games that can present decisions as lifelike as possible have the best chance of leaving a lasting moral impression on those who play them. Particularly where choices can be made freely and when consequences aren’t always obvious. And in an Aristotelian framework, these have the best chance of aiding moral development.
Some Final Thoughts
Just like the real world, the ethical situations within games are not always appropriate for kids or young teenagers. So, it’s ultimately up to guardian figures to determine what their children should and should not be exposed to. As with anything, video games can have a positive or negative impact. And while they can help in moral development, they should never be viewed as the sole means by which anyone should come into their ethical framework. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of parents and guardians to help youth understand the implications of their decisions. Perhaps the best path forward is one of open discussion, whether the situations revolve around those found in video games or real life.