Applied Ethics - Simulated Killing

• 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

• 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)

• 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