Ethics and Video Game learning. Part one.

So it isn't at all possible that with the talks of gun control, right now that video games are going to be targeted as a source of over agressive and violent tendencies for youth right?

It's a topic of discussion in the past for legislators here in the US and around the world each nation has it's own views on the nature of violent video games. Germany, for instance, has banned the development of violent video games. They are of the opinion that the GDP isn't worth the effects that these products will have on their population.

All free market arguments aside, are video games teaching us to be more agressive and violent?

Well there hasn't been any data that really conclusively links the two. There are plenty of theories but nothing substantiated. However, if you look at what we know, we can see where people get the idea that videogames teach violence.

First of all, we know that active learning is better then passive learning. If you watch a video on how to make a radio, you wont learn nearly as much as if you actually made the radio with your own two hands. This is universal. So when a video game depicts violence, or situations in which violence is the solution to a problem, thus we are using a very powerful tool to teach kids to become gangbangers!!!!

That's a bit of an overestimation.

'Murica

It's a big leap to say that active learning in a fantasy virtual environment transferes over into real world scenarios. Just because I rob a guy in a game for his pistol ammo, doesn't mean that I'll go to the local supermarket and try the same thing. Thats the difference between fantasy and real life. Even in Grand Theft Auto, which I would argue is a fantasy game, where the enviornment seems to be realistic, we often don't find enough reality. I mean what police man lets a guy just walk down the street waving a gun everywhere? Even if it's legal (God bless America!) the police would still stop you and question you. Also, plenty of the situations are pretty far fetched in the game. I think the difference between the virtual reality and real life is not only discernable, but out right blatant.

We also know that violence in TV and movies desensitize youth to violence. The more they see it in casual settings the more familiar they become with it. This is actually pretty true for the most part. I mean when I was six my dad made me watch "Tombstone" with Kurt Russell. He said to my mother, who was entirely opposed to the idea, "I don't want my kid growing up to be some sissy." Well, it worked. I've never been squeamish about anything im my whole life. Blood, puke, poop, dead things have never bothered me. Now if we follow this line of thought, can't we say that violent video games could desensitize us to violence so much that the player would simply resort to violence at the first sign of trouble?

We don't see that is the case. What we actually see videogames doing is teaching problem solving skills. Violence is almost always an option in videogames, but often times the game provides incentives to avoid violence. If I could avoid a fight, I would because there was always loss associated with getting into a fight. Either I'd use up some precious equipment, or I'd lose health, or my gear would get damaged. Violence, while it may be an option, isn't alway the best option. Violence takes a back seat to other forms of conflict mediation. And game developers know this. We see RPG's making use of more and more diplomatic dialogue options. The progression of Videogames has not been violent situations to even more violent situations, the progression has deescalated the violence in many situations. Who remembers speech checking the Legate out of invading the NCR? I bet a few of us made a new character in New Vegas to do just that.

Part two coming up in a week!