A number of current mainstream debates surrounding video games involve the issue of whether violent content in video games cause aggression and violent behavior in the people playing the game.
The typical argument that video game violence causes real world violence seems to employ reasoning similar to that surrounding use of the brutalization hypothesis in applied ethics. The brutalization hypothesis essentially states that violent human behavior is a response to the social environment in which we live; when one’s environment contains some factor that explicitly or implicitly promotes violence as an objective moral good, one is desensitized to the harmful effects of violent behavior and accordingly becomes more likely to commit acts of aggression and violence. Although the brutalization hypothesis is typically used in arguments pertaining to the justification of capital punishment, it is somewhat frequently extended to the criticism of any media that portray violence in a positive or entertaining light – especially violent video games. The conclusion that video game violence causes players’ violence is often crucially supported by “proof” from psychological and sociological studies that reveal correlations between violent video game play and violent behavior, especially in children.
As such, the standard argument regarding video games and violence is in blatant violation of the non causa pro causa or post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, ( see The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy )which basically deems invalid any argument that jumps to a conclusion of causal necessity based exclusively on the correlation of events.
According to Jeffery Goldstein in “Violent Video Games”, the actual data from studies on the behavioral effects of video game violence are far from conclusive: while some (often biased) statistics show that there is a correlation among young, white males between high aggression levels, poor academic performance, and increased exposure to violent video games, this does not mean that playing violent video games is the cause of the other correlates; after all, there are many young white males who play violent video games frequently and yet still perform well in school and do not demonstrate abnormal levels of aggression. It could very well be the case that some underlying factor causes both aggression and the desire for violent entertainment: for example, naturally aggressive people could be more drawn to violent entertainment, or young people with minimal academic success may turn to gaming as means to other kinds of rewarding achievement. Furthermore, the correlation between violence and playing of violent video games could simply be coincidental.
It’s logically unavoidable that the playing of violent video games is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition for violent behavior.
1 comment:
I liked how you used the brutalization hypothesis in applied ethics in your discussion about violence in video games. You used good evidence to back up your claims. I enjoyed the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy in that respect. I agree that more interest should be taken in whether there are underlying factors to violent behavior rather than simply pinning the blame on violence material in video games.
Post a Comment