If simulated killing offers greatest happiness to greatest amount of people, it is morally justifiable
SIMULATED KILLING DOES LEAD TO SUFFERING
Could lead to killing
Emotional distress i.e. griefing; killing off TV/film characters
CRITICISM
No empirical evidence it does so
Weighing up pain from actual killing vs. pleasure of simulated killing
Mill's Harm Principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercise over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"; if proven to harm others, utilitarians would ban simulated killing
CRITICISM
If no link; no ban, Mill supported right to free speech
Mill: more likely to support simulated killing if originated from higher order pleasure i.e. Shakespeare plays rather than GTA V
1 of 3
Kantian Ethics and Simulated Killing (12)
Simulated killing could be using as means to end i.e. killing one's game avatar
Games are competitions and we have imperfect duty to develop natural talents (maxim acted upon: use your natural talents to be the best player in game)
CRITICISM
Overexposure damages capacity to exercise good will. Kant: murder is wrong since it's irrational/violates formulations of Categorical Imperative, not because it causes pain
We have imperfect duty to not participate/observe simulated killing for pleasure; no rational being would want to derive satisfaction from immoral actions
RESPONSE
If it illustrates higher moral purpose, it's acceptable (deontological rather than teleological)
2 of 3
Virtue Ethics and Simulated Killing (12)
Aristotle could question whether someone playing GTA V all day is flourishing
Simulated killing could lead to catharsis; purging violent urges (thanatos) rids us of vices i.e. irascibility/cantankerousness
Comments
No comments have yet been made