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)?
One of Plato’s arguments for not incorporating homer or other forms of poetry into the republic’s education system was that if one needed to play the role of a villain or immoral character in a play, and do it well, they would inherently become more like that character, and therefore, more of an immoral person. He gives the example of a man who tells a story, and while describing something said or done by a good man, he would “happily assume the role of that good man,” but “when he comes across a degrading character, he won’t be prepared to assimilate himself seriously to this inferior person” (Plato 396d). Socrates’s argument makes logical sense, as actors who devote themselves entirely to a specific role more than anything else are typically considered the best actors. Today, examples of method actors like Christian Bale and Heath Ledger embody the meaning of quality acting and performance, but there are cases that show how playing a character can take a toll on their minds. In an interview, when asked how long the characters he played stay in his head, Christian Bale questioned if they ever actually left, suggesting that they have a permanent impact on his mind. This shows the Plato’s argument holds true for actors, and it depends if they play the part well. If an actor were to take on the role of an immoral person but do it poorly and not be invested in the character, they would take on significantly less of the character traits of the villain when compared to the method actor. This is because of how the two types of actors, the less invested and the method actor, differentiate their occupation from reality. The line is blurred in the case of the skilled actor, so they are prone to taking on the traits of their character, good or bad, whereas the actor who can separate acting from reality, will not take on such traits.
ReplyDeleteThe same applies to violent videogames. If the players are able to easily differentiate the game from reality, they will not become more violent. For the vast majority of people, video games are on a computer screen, which makes it readily apparent that the game is not reality. But if videogames were to become so realistic to the point that they were indistinguishable from reality (almost like a perfect VR headset, where the user would not have to hold any kind of controller, somehow feel the weight of a weapon they possess in the game, and all five senses would be completely stimulated, as if transported to a different reality), then the risk of players becoming inherently more violent because of the violence present in the game would be much greater, or even inevitable.
In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger argument to get rid of videogames, the law would be morally justified if the videogames were indistinguishable from reality. But since the population is clearly capable of differentiating the videogames present today from what is real, the law is unconstitutional, as it simply restricts the rights of the people with no marginal benefit. The only time a form of entertainment, such as violent videogames, should be restricted is if the people using it are not yet capable of differentiating the form of entertainment from their reality.
While Plato argued for the banning of fictional stories, politicians have tried restricting video games. In 2005, Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a bill to ban minors from purchasing M-rated games. Schwarzenegger’s reasoning was "many of [the] games are made for adults, and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents.” By applying Plato’s past ideal of the three parts of the mind into present issues in society like banning video games, we can gauge the validity of his central claim while simultaneously analyzing the applicability of this law.
ReplyDeleteTo understand Plato’s arguments for banning fiction, one must first understand the three parts of mind. According to him, the mind consists of three distinct parts: the rational/reason, the appetitive/desirous, and the emotional. A good, moral person’s mind should contain these three parts, with reason in control. Plato warns of the poets as their art isn’t intended “to please or to affect the rational principle in the soul; but [they] will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily imitated”(605a). Simply put, poetry aims to attack one’s appetitive mind of subdue reason. To Plato’s credit, this argument is disconcerting as it demonstrates the sometimes deceptive, dangerous nature desire can behold. Additionally he mentions “children cannot distinguish between what is allegory and what isn’t, and opinions formed at that age are usually difficult to eradicate or change”(378 d). Here, he highlights the fragility of a young, undeveloped mind. Kids minds are volatile, and an immature mind coupled with temptation from appetitive desires can have lethal consequences. But instead of examining one of Plato’s thought experiments, we can look into Charlie Bracke’s life. Bracke was a normal teen hooked on video games, playing them in any spare time he could find. However, the seemingly harmless fun of playing an online game spiraled into an addictive cycle in which Charlie was playing 90 hours a week, not attending class, and later in life he lost his job. Recently, the World Health Organization classified a new disease, “gaming disorder.” The dopamine release from video games has been seen to have a similar pattern to that of an alcohol or drug addiction. This not only depicts the harms of video games, but also supports Plato’s idea of a balanced, moral life and mind. In Charlie’s case, his appetitive mind overpowered his reasoning, leading to dangerous, potentially life-altering outcomes. Just as “the poet gratifies and indulges the instinctive desires of a part of us,” video game creators have curated ways to create addictive patterns through our desires (606 B).
ReplyDeleteWhile Schwazennegers bill was found unconstitutional due to our freedom of speech, this has not deterred other countries like China from proposing similar bills. In China, there was a crackdown “aimed at curbing gaming addiction among youth and purging content the government did not approve of, with companies asked to delete content that was violent.” Kids were restricted to three hours a week, with specific windows of time for game play. While little empirical data has been published, it's interesting to witness the reactions from this law. On record, many adults have praised the law as it helped their children disconnect, yet others have claimed it has not helped the addiction problem. Regardless, the application of censorship is interesting to see in society.
But if video games are banned, when does it stop?
Should music be banned?
Should painting be banned?
Should self-expression of all kinds be banned?
Where does it stop?
Also, the same man who proposed the bill to ban violent video games in California was also involved as the star of a gorey game just a few years after his political career.
While video games may entice kids to lean into their appetitive side, so do other activities. In society, many of us are overtaken with greed, lust, or desire. Instead of barring kids from things that may tempt them, we should instead educate them to use reason appropriately. A kid may play a violent game, but that does not automatically translate to a violent life. Like in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, we could try to repress kids through censorship, or they can be given a proper education and knowledge that will help them navigate situations where their appetitive side may challenge reason.
Inherently there isn’t a valid case of the removal or prohibition or video games. Plato refuted Homers poetry for the message it conveyed to its readers. Becuase Homer’s poems essentially denounced god, and the reader would take on and idolize views of the poet, this type of poetry was extremely wrong. Consequentially it was immoral to teach these poems in schools and misguide people. The same flaws from this arguement lapse over into Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal. While Arnold may have been able to squat a house he overlooked the ideals of autonomy and open-mindedness in the same way that Plato did. Regardless of whether or not video games and poetry is banned, that residual message will still be retained by many. What is to stop an adult from letting a kid to play that game, or an adult reading their kid that”vile” poetry. The ideals of looting and grand theft auto are terrible in the real world, yet those crimes exist either way. Video games and poetry are a form of artistic expression, and thus are a pursuit of happiness and justice. Constitution aside, poetry and games are an avenue of expressing discontent and taking your feelings out. By restricting video games and poetry you open the door to restricting free thought. It is immoral to not allow everyone’s opinions to be shared, no matter the opinion, because if the entrensic right of everyone to voice their thoughts. The more important issue is not children being influenced by video games or poetry, as these concepts exist outside of these means of communication. Some kid will learn these concepts and if it is so gate kept, it becomes more intriguing and idol worthy. The more important thing to do is convey to children what morality truly means. A good kid who is moral won’t be swayed by a video game they find fun, if proper morals are instilled. Arnold Schwarzenegger ate a ton of healthy food, yet it didn’t damage him in the long run when he snuck a couple of chest meals and unhealthy food.
ReplyDelete