Topic: Awright, I need some help. I need some ethical theories for "Video Game Addiction"
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I need 2-3 ethical arguements for and against Video game addiction, I don't need 2-3 authors just one major theory for each and I can interpret the theory as such. I'm asking anyone to do my hmwk for me I need this to write a 15 minute presentation. Where should I look?
IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Maybe I answered the wrong question. Sorry, Blayne. I thought you were looking for suggestions of ethical theories from which you could derive arguments either for or against video game addiction; e.g., by the first formulation of Kant's categorical imperative, video game addiction is wrong because society would fail to be productive if everyone were addicted to video games.
Okay, that's not a good example, but you get what I was going for.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
??? No you anwsered the right question.
Now Kant is based off of Duty, so thus would it be your duty as a game to play games inorder to help support game designers??
Now in seriousness I'm trying to figure out where rightness/wrongness applies.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Blayne. What're the three formulations of the categorical imperative? What three things does an action need to have or do to be a "right" action? Then just examine gaming from those three.
Anyway, the easiest theory to argue from both sides would probably be utilitarianism, especially hedonistic utilitarianism.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think I was told to avoid fallacies wouldn't hedonistic utilitarianism be a fallacy?
IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I didn't phrase my question correctly. If hedonistic utilitarianism is a fallacy, which is it? And, in particular, which argument of hedonistic utilitarianism are you referring to as a fallacy?
The only fallacy I think you could be referring to is the bandwagon, but that wouldn't be right because hedonistic utilitarianism isn't appealing popularity. It's not saying the majority thinks that the right thing to do is the thing which brings the greatest amount of pleasure to the greatest number of people and so we should do it.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No I just don't remember which ones I only remember that certain theories were fallacies I'll check my resource book and double check.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So utilitarianism is determine morally good or bad if it harms/helps people, otherwise consequential ethics.
So one could use utilitarianism for both cases?
IP: Logged |
google scholar is a very useful tool when trying to track down research articles. I used it quite a bit when hunting down articles that my Unversity didn't have, or at times when I didn't feel like going down to the library, but wanted something that my University didn't have the electronic rights to.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
thanks. now all I need to do is find my ethics resource book which tells me what not to use as a theory and how to write my presentation.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay so...
Playing video games for several hours possibly at the expense of chores, job, social life, school is good because under Jeremy Bentham's theory of Utilitarianism the most good or happiness is brought with the greatest amount of pleasure. The more you can play in a given amount of time means the more enjoyment you can recieve from the experiance where say as an example instead of one hour to do a quest you now have 3 hours, thus you now possess three score the happiness/pleasure.
However, on the flipside I can argue that playing for abscene hours is wrong based from Mill's spproach to Utilitarianism because he argue's that "he considered cultural and spiritual happiness to be of greater value than mere physical pleasure." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#History_of_utilitarianism
So thus because playing a video game or an MMORPG only brings physical and mental pleasure that is often short lived it is thus not as important as cultural and spiritual pleasure which would include relaxation, religion, a social life, a job to contribute to society in any way possible, etc.
posted
Sounds like a good starting point. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay how does this sound:
quote:Utilitarianism: Playing Video games for hours on end does not yield a net benefit for the greatest amount of people, it yields rather, a net detriment to the largest possible amount of people. By playing for hours at a time you take time away from your spouse, your family, your friends. By hurting these people you violate the ethics proposed by Utilitarianism. Playing online does may benefit your gamer “friends” but online insubstantial people are not a priority, family, job, school these are the priorities and by neglecting these you neglect life.
Libertarianism: What is ethically right is what gives pleasure to the individual and thus that individual should have the full rights to pursue happiness as equated with pleasure, playing video games to his hearts content for as long as it does not harm another individuals right to pursue happiness as well is perfectly within his rights to do. Video games supply pleasure but not just pleasure games, ranging from table top board games like Risk or Card games like Magic: The Gathering to PC and consol games like Everquest (the formers) and Halo the latter can provide happiness to individuals unable to find it elsewhere.
I have sources, at least 2 for each side so if this sounds good I can flesh it out a little 8-15 minutes or so long... its an oral presentation.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that your Utilitarianism argument neglects to consider the beneficial effect of liesure enjoyment for the player. Is it possible that for certain people, spending hours of liesure time playing video games IS the most utility-maximizing activity? It probably won't change your overall conclusion, but it makes for a fuller consideration.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if using hatrack to do your homework for you would be considered cheating if your teachers and school knew about it? It strikes me as a gray area, definitely --
But isn't part of what they're trying to teach you by giving you these assignments RESEARCHING and FORMING YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS?
Aren't you robbing yourself of the opportunity to develop academic skills?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the level of help a recieved would be thought of as cheating by teachers. If someone did the research for him, or wrote the paper for him it would be cheating...but people in this thread have mostly helped by pointing him in a direction, and acting as sounding boards.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I described it as a gray area -- but specifically what I'm concerned about is the idea that hatrack is doing his research for him. I don't think that's up for too much debate. And I'm guessing that research is probably a pretty important component of the assignment.
posted
I am not asking for research my information come from my sources I'm just formulating an arguement and bouncing it off hatrack, I dont think I asked except in the beginning for any help for determining which theories to use, I'm sticking with Utilitarianism and Libertarianism until I can make a little more sense of Kant.
IP: Logged |
posted
Do your own homework.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Our goal is to determine the arguments fighting for and against video game addiction and to ascertain whether or not it is truly harmful to the individual and to those around them or likewise whether or not it is truly beneficial to enjoy video games over an extended period of time, balance the arguments and reach a solid conclusion based upon the evidence provided by reliable sources. However, this will not be based completely on “pros and cons” but rather on substantiated and well known ethical theories, and or their interpretations by published ethical theorists and scholars. Starting with the argument against Game Addiction utilizing Utilitarianism (pun intended). This states that something is morally good if it benefits the greatest number of people for a net happiness. Using various internet sources to show how the said addiction has harmed not only the individual but also those around him, thus creating a net loss of happiness making it evil. From there it will proceed to the second prong of the argument involving libertarianism where what is morally good is something that brings liberty/pleasure to the individual without infracting on the right’s to have pleasure/liberty of other individuals.
How does this sound? I think I can smuggle Kant in as well, since if you play video games alot it degenerates when you utilize people as an means to an end (playing more games) rather then a ends of themselves.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Awright, anyone have any ideas of the pros of playing video games? I currently have:
Improves hand-eye coordination
allows players a medium to interact with varied peopels and groups
relieves depression
provides an "escape" for those, akin to reading fantasy books.
and stimulates creativity.
Anyone have any other ideas they woud like to add?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Celaeno, that was a perfect example of how to help without taking over. Excellent, excellent questions!
Thanks! Sorry, I didn't see that until just today.
quote:I'd say that your Utilitarianism argument neglects to consider the beneficial effect of liesure enjoyment for the player. Is it possible that for certain people, spending hours of liesure time playing video games IS the most utility-maximizing activity? It probably won't change your overall conclusion, but it makes for a fuller consideration.
Blayne: Juxtapose is right. You really aren't considering the big picture when using Utilitarianism. It's net happiness (or pleasure, depending on what sort of Utilitarianism you're focusing on), so you have to take the positive points into consideration when you do this. Really, to say that video gaming is bad from a Utilitarian perspective, you need to show that the universal detriment outweighs the universal benefit. You can't only look at the harm.
So I've been rethinking this, and if you really want to attack gaming with an ethical theory, you should think about Kant and his Categorial Imperative.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm only allowed to use a ethical theory once, like I cant use utilitarianism for both sides of the issue for example. But ill double check Kant.
IP: Logged |
posted
But see, Blayne, if you don't take everything into account, you're not using Utilitarianism correctly at all. It's not net happiness if you don't take the positive aspects into account. Your conclusion by Utilitarianism can still be that the bad outweighs the good, but you have to show that you actually weighed the two.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I feel like there's a big difference between bouncing ideas off other people and having them do your work for you. Essentially, I think it's the homework help giver's responsibility to make sure that line isn't crossed. I'm trying really hard to not cross that line, but if I've overstepped it, please let me know so that I may change my approach.
Then again, I haven't been around long or frequently enough to see if Blayne does this often. If this is a constant occurrence, I'll try to be a little more wary.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't think Blayne is cheating. It's like sitting with a bunch of friends and talking about it. For me it's nothing wrong, and I wouldn't punish a student of mine because of it. Au contrair, I think he's being quite resourceful.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
