Ethics and Information Technology 19 (2):117-128 (2017)

Authors
Sebastian Ostritsch
Universität Stuttgart
Abstract
According to the amoralist, computer games cannot be subject to moral evaluation because morality applies to reality only, and games are not real but “just games”. This challenges our everyday moralist intuition that some games are to be met with moral criticism. I discuss and reject the two most common answers to the amoralist challenge and argue that the amoralist is right in claiming that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in simply playing a game. I go on to argue for the so-called “endorsement view” according to which there is nevertheless a sense in which games themselves can be morally problematic, viz. when they do not only represent immoral actions but endorse a morally problematic worldview. Based on the endorsement view, I argue against full blown amoralism by claiming that gamers do have a moral obligation when playing certain games even if their moral obligation is not categorically different from that of readers and moviegoers.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10676-017-9420-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,078
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts.Kendall L. Walton - 1990 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49 (2):161-166.
The Ethical Criticism of Art.Berys Gaut - 1998 - In Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection. Cambridge University Press. pp. 182--203.
Moderate Moralism.Noël Carroll - 1996 - British Journal of Aesthetics 36 (3):223-238.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Virtual Action.Jan-Hendrik Heinrichs - 2020 - Ethics and Information Technology 23 (3):317-330.
What Does the Gamer Do?Rebecca Davnall - 2020 - Ethics and Information Technology 23 (3):225-237.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Incorrigible Social Meaning of Video Game Imagery.Stephanie Patridge - 2010 - Ethics and Information Technology 13 (4):303-312.
The Amoralist Objection and the Method of Moral Reasoning.Matej Sušnik - 2009 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):91-100.
Military Service and Moral Obligation.Hugo Adam Bedau - 1971 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 14 (1-4):244 – 266.
Has Bartel Resolved the Gamer’s Dilemma?Morgan Luck & Nathan Ellerby - 2013 - Ethics and Information Technology 15 (3):229-233.
Justifying Morality to Fooles.Debra A. Debruin - 1988 - Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
What Is The Basis of Moral Obligation?H. A. Prichard - 2002 - In Jim MacAdam (ed.), Moral Writings. Clarendon Press.
Why Physicians Ought to Lie for Their Patients.Nicolas Tavaglione & Samia Hurst - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (3):4-12.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-28

Total views
34 ( #332,739 of 2,498,794 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #139,531 of 2,498,794 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes