Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Hasta la Vista Homer
As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is the argument more valid as video game technology improves and the simulation of reality more seamless? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Plato argues that immoral representations of people should be censored since people are influenced by the actions of others. He formulates his argument with the premise that as people listen to representational narratives, they will eventually adopt the characteristics that are displayed by the protagonist. This protagonist can either demonstrate good, moral actions or evil, immoral ones. Plato finds this problematic because, "if representation continues much past childhood, it becomes habitual and ingrained and has an effect on a person's body, voice, and mind" (395c). Plato is concern about the immoral portrayals of heroes because it conflict with his principle of 'one man, one job'. He wants to ensure that the people does not desire these illusory traits as it would ultimately alter their true nature. Plato believes that one should adhere to their own nature in order to be in harmony with their mind. Being in agreement with one's mind is what makes them moral. Therefore, in order to preserve the original nature of one's mind, immoral and evil representation of people should be censored. If Plato's definition of morality is true, then this makes a great argument for the restriction of video games. Video games are a type of wish fulfillment for many teens. Since video games are illusory, it allows players the freedom to act on their desires. However, when one acts on their desires, they are deviating from their original nature, which makes them immoral. Therefore, videos games should be banned for teens. Although Plato's argument is reasonable, I believe that it is somewhat flawed. If immoral portrayals cause people to change their nature, wouldn’t moral portrayals of heroes also cause people to desire to be something that they are not born into? Also, if Plato did censor all immoral actions, how can one tell if something is immoral or moral? Everything has an opposite, and if you completely take away one opposite, then there is nothing to compare the remaining side with. So, if Plato's utopian education system is successful, then how will students know if they are moral if they don’t have an understanding of immorality? Plato's argument can be valid in the case to prohibit video games if his idea of morality is true. But if it was true, then moral representations can also cause a person to be immoral since they desire to be something they are not.
ReplyDeleteI slightly disagree with your argument that Plato's definition of morality creates a great case for restricting video games because Plato's definition assumes that each man already knows what his "one job" is. However, this assumed premise is false in a society where there is censorship because if man is not exposed to all of the available routes he could take in life, how would he know which job best suits him? Censorship in Plato's Utopian society would falsify one of his essential premises in his definition of morality. To relate this back to the video games, in today's age, playing and making violent games can be a lucrative career. A childhood love of game can motivate a future career, with the proper technological education; therefore, video games can be beneficial. Schwarzenegger maintains the premise that the first person point of view in violent video games increases the likelihood of violence in real life, however this premise cannot be validated as all it does is bring us back to the nature vs. nurture argument. Would anyone value the influence of a video game over his or her parents' and their originally born nature?
DeleteI think the point you made, “moral representations can also cause a person to be immoral since they desire to be something they are not,” is a thought provoking argument. If someone is meant to be a teacher, but they also read about the hero in school and decided to be a police officer because of that, he would not be fulfilling his job. This counterargument seems logical and I am curious as to what Plato would think about it.