Since the horrifying shooting in Newtown, Connecticut last month, several debates have raged across the nation. Understandably, people want to address whatever is allowing these mass-shooting sprees to occur, so that they can be prevented in the future. Emotionally jarring incidents like the slaying of innocents often creates an impulse for people to find someone or something to blame.
Three main disputes were kindled by this shooting: the gun-control debate, discussions of school security, and the effects of violent entertainment on violence in society. The first two are appropriate things to consider in the wake of such an event.
While I do not think that gun control will curb violence – it never has done so successfully – it is certainly reasonable to consider addressing the risks of guns (preferably without curbing people’s right to self-defense). Discussing security in schools is also important, as the most defenseless and innocent members of our society ought not to live in fear of harm.
The debate surrounding violent video games, however, is completely illegitimate. Despite the fact that the Newtown shooter would spend hours glued to his screen, playing Call of Duty, it is preposterous to allege that his obsessive playing of first-person-shooter games caused him to shoot real people.
But this allegation is rather common, especially among the older generations (primarily those who were already parents when violent video gaming became popular). The argument against violent video games generally states that the repeated exposure to horrific violence desensitizes gamers, who are then less likely to have an aversion to violence.
This doesn’t hold much water at all; children today are sheltered from violence far more than any prior generation. Earlier generations would be exposed to blood and gore from hunting, and it was common for children to have killed and helped to skin an animal before they were ten years old. Often times, children would witness their own grandparents’ deaths, as hospice care usually consisted of dying in a 3-generation household.
The notion that shooting digital zombies, aliens, and pretend soldiers on a screen could somehow normalize violence and death more than witnessing actual violence and death is not worth taking seriously. The more reasonable advocates against violent video games will accept this, and offer a more relevant counter-argument:
“What about someone who cannot tell the difference between the game and reality?” If such a person exists, he or she is truly insane; such a person would have to be mentally retarded or disturbed. It is important to note, however, that the problem here is not the video game that the disturbed person has confused with reality.
The problem is that there is a disturbed person who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality – it doesn’t matter which fantasy he or she thinks is real. What if, as a perverse example, a crazy person was drugged enough to believe himself the Joker, and then he decided to crash Bane’s first night out by proving himself the bigger villain? Should we ban Batman, in case someone decides to imitate one of his adversaries?
In a broader sense, should we ban art for everyone – viewers and artists alike – because a few insane people may be provoked by it? Certainly not. The style of an evil act can be inspired by art, but art is not the cause of the evil – a murderer who creates elaborate traps for his victims has far more wrong with him than having seen “Saw”.
Abridging the artist’s right to free speech and expression because someone else is too unstable to understand that art is not reality is neither a moral nor practical method for solving violence. When we consider this, along with the tremendous benefits every sane person draws from art, as well as the rarity of people insane enough to be driven to violence by it, censorship becomes too obviously unpalatable. So, even if art could cause violence, it would be absurd to ban it.
But can art even manipulate someone into a violent act? If any type of art is capable of doing so, violent video games – specifically first person shooters – would be the best candidate to examine. After all, a game which allows you to hold a gun and shoot people is a bit more provocative than Romeo and Juliet.
Thoughts are the causes of all human actions. All decisions – actions of the body which are neither autonomic nor reflexive – require a process of either conscious or subconscious thought to accomplish. In other words, a human does not see violence and then automatically act more violently. Such analysis is an embarrassing relic of the behaviorist school of psychology, and ignores the fact that a violent action presupposes a violent thought.
Violent thoughts do not occur in healthy minds; they arise from a person’s subconscious knowledge of his own impotence to deal with reality, and the consequent frustration. The logical next step from such frustration is to seek control second-handedly: A person who feels impotent towards his own life will seek to conquer someone who is competent to deal with reality. One consequence of this is violent behavior (another is power lust).
This is far more complicated than “monkey-see, monkey-do”, and reducing the equation to “person sees violence, person commits violence” ignores the fact that all humans possess a reasoning consciousness. This means that a person cannot be imprinted with a natural tendency to behave a certain way merely by observing it.
A healthy person can engage in behavior that appears violent without any violent thoughts towards other human beings. For example, consider a person who exercises by using a punching bag. Such a person would be well-practiced in an action that can harm others (more than can be said for a gamer), but may never actually punch someone. Similarly, shooting pixels is different than shooting people, and it is common for people to shoot imaginary people regularly without ever hurting a fly in the real world.
It would behoove advocates against violent video games to properly identify the causes of violent behavior, as opposed to their current approach of finding an easy scapegoat. The notion of a person being inspired to murder by Call of Duty is equivalent to the notion of a couple being inspired to commit suicide together by Romeo and Juliet. Both are equally preposterous, and both neglect an obvious statistical likelihood: When we deal with the most popular shooting game, or the most popular Shakespearean tragedy, what are the odds that someone disturbed won’t come across them? Zero.
A lack of rigorous examination and a rush to assign blame have made fools of the advocates against violent video games. While their emotional approach is understandable, it must be condemned. Ultimately, they have diverted attention from the real problems that cause violent behavior, which cannot be solved on a macro-level.
If a person is driven to commit murder, it is because he or she has deep psychological problems – most notably, a lack of self-esteem. Those of us who seek to avert the horrors of mass-shootings need to start small: Make yourself into the best person that you can be. Developing a true value for your life is the only way to respect the value of others. The light you bring into the world will draw others to you, and they will learn from your example.
When we hope for a peaceful, cooperative, and loving society, what we really mean is that we want a collection of individuals with all of those attributes. That is a war that we can only win one battle – one person – at a time.
While you certainly make a compelling argument for the absurdity of scapegoating violent videogames– and let me make it clear that I agree with your core arguement– I still think you’re oversimplifying the phsychological problems of murderors. Someone who walks into a Batman movie and starts spraying people with bullets or a young man who takes down 9 year old children in an elementary school, should be put on another level; they are another species (in fact, couldn’t we just disassociate them from the human race?) But in all seriousness, I agree with the fact that a person who acts violently toward others (or a person who seeks power for the sake of power) must feel some degree of impotence or at least fear a loss of potence in his own life. To say, however, that, “If a person is driven to commit murder, it is because he or she has deep psychological problems – most notably, a lack of self-esteem” is to imply that there is a blanket solution to a wide variety of troubled minds. But how could those people ever be expected to have self-esteem if they are not even capable of true conciousness (i.e. they are not capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy)? I think it’s true that in order to have a peaceful, cooperative society we must all learn the value of ourselves (and thus others), but I do not believe we will ever live in a society–especially one with a culture like ours– that will be safe from violent lunatics.
Now, this brings me to one last point–a point you haven’t merited as a legitmate variable to this equation: our culture. While I stress, especially in my own life, the importance of proper selfishness and I believe we would live in a generally healthier and more productive society if we all strove toward that goal, teenagers these days face way more social/cultural obstacles. They face, more so than any of us ever did, so many more distractions from themselves. I didn’t have a phone until freshman year of highschool, and I didn’t have a facebook until junior year. Now kids are in a constantly connected world– they are taught implicitly to care more about what others think of them, their lives, their interests, etc. than is healthy. They take more interest in their peers and where they “stand” among them than they do in their selves. In a culture like this, how are tweens and adolescents supposed to even start on the path of their Selves if they are burdened by the disillusioned importance of the status (yes- facebook pun) of their peers?
The answer is of course philosophy… but what realistic solution could be offered to guide these younger generations? I mean you can’t expect a 12 year old to pick up Ayn Rand and actually understand her lessons without a teacher to help breakdown the premises of her philosophy…
While you certainly make a compelling argument for the absurdity of scapegoating violent videogames– and let me make it clear that I agree with your core argument– I still think you’re oversimplifying the psychological problems of murderers. Someone who walks into a Batman movie and starts spraying people with bullets or a young man who takes down 9 year old children in an elementary school, should be put on another level; they are another species (in fact, couldn’t we just disassociate them from the human race?) But in all seriousness, I agree with the fact that a person who acts violently toward others (or a person who seeks power for the sake of power) must feel some degree of impotence or at least fear a loss of potency in his own life. To say, however, that, “If a person is driven to commit murder, it is because he or she has deep psychological problems – most notably, a lack of self-esteem” is to imply that there is a blanket solution to a wide variety of troubled minds. But how could those people ever be expected to have self-esteem if they are not even capable of true consciousness (i.e. they are not capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy)? I think it’s true that in order to have a peaceful, cooperative society we must all learn the value of ourselves (and thus others), but I do not believe we will ever live in a society–especially one with a culture like ours– that will be safe from violent lunatics.
Now, this brings me to one last point–a point you haven’t merited as a legitimate variable to this equation: our culture. While I stress, especially in my own life, the importance of proper selfishness and I believe we would live in a generally healthier and more productive society if we all strove toward that goal, teenagers these days face way more social/cultural obstacles. They face, more so than any of us ever did, so many more distractions from themselves. I didn’t have a phone until freshman year of highschool, and I didn’t have a facebook until junior year. Now kids are in a constantly connected world– they are taught implicitly to care more about what others think of them, their lives, their interests, etc. than is healthy. They take more interest in their peers and where they “stand” among them than they do in their selves. In a culture like this, how are tweens and adolescents supposed to even start on the path of their Selves if they are burdened by the disillusioned importance of the status (yes- facebook pun) of their peers?
The answer is of course philosophy… but what realistic solution could be offered to guide these younger generations? I mean you can’t expect a 12 year old to pick up Ayn Rand and actually understand her lessons without a teacher to help breakdown the premises of her philosophy…
Wow I had to stop reading because I believe otherwise about video games, that was my first line of reasoning starting as far back as the batman movie shooting, that these shooters are role playing, fantasy evolved from standing up and shooting at contrived scenes where characterized people die.
I am not sure I would call these arguments preposterous, that word itself is preposterous.
There is some link between video type killing role playing and the actual stepping into the arena of life and wanting to feel truely what it means to kill. Video games are pornography, people fantasizing about killing.
Sorry I don’ t mean to rant, I just feel strongly that we are wrong to have our children or our adults playing games that involve killing, especially when it is made to entertain.
Thanks for your compelling argument. Intellectually speaking, we are probably of a similar vein. However I feel that you are unfortunately mistaken about the potential for pop culture violence influencing the minds of youth in their formative years.
While you accurately point out that only a mentally disturbed individual couldn’t distinguish between video game massacres and real life massacres, we must recall that we are dealing with children, not with cognitively mature adults. The average human being’s cognitive capacity doesn’t fully develop until one’s early to mid-twenties. An eight-year-old, though possessing a rational faculty, almost invariably hasn’t the means to consistently utilize it. Moreover, science supports the notion that an individual’s learning experiences and cognitive growth during the very earliest years of one’s life can usually determine one’s success over a lifetime. It is inexcusable to offer children anything less than the strictest application of reason in all their learning experiences (one reason that I abhor most parents and find them wholly unfit for the responsibility they recklessly chose – most parents are in fact typically completely backwards in their ideas about raising children). ANY game which glorifies violence is obviously anti-reason and anti-human. It’s disgusting and unacceptable to make violence any part of a child’s upbringing. I would note here that I don’t think any truly Objectivist parent would disagree with me in my last statement.
While most of your argument makes sense, I’m a bit bewildered about your defense of violent video games with the false excuse that kids hundreds of years ago apparently saw worse violence. Firstly, hunting is not the same as violence (although I personally find harming animals to be disgusting, it is not comparable to force initiated against human beings). Secondly, the natural process of aging and dying – is precisely nonviolent – by definition. Perhaps you meant to say that today’s youth have been sheltered from painful experiences – which is preposterous considering the shenanigans in a typical public school setting. Children in every era have been exposed to real violence, such as domestic violence, child abuse, rape, war, street fighting, lynching, etc. If anything, witnessing the evils of this behavior would likely turn children AWAY from violence, not toward it. It is precisely the opposite in video games. Video games deliberate reward disgusting thug behavior – simulated, yes, but the principle is precisely the same. The fact that kids can’t see the tragic consequences of the games is PRECISELY what makes the games so evil. They glorify evil and present none of the reality of what evil does.
I understand that Objectivists are rightfully concerned about the threat of the state banning games to protect us from ourselves and the threat of witch-doctors proclaiming that we’re naturally evil and should surrender our will to a religious or governmental authority to supposedly prevent violence from taking place. They are legitimate concerns. However, attempting to defend violent games is not a legitimate response to this problem. NO Objectivist should defend ANYTHING violent.
I appreciate your comment, Tiffany, and you make some very strong points.
I think you misinterpreted me a bit when I argued against the notion that video games desensitize children to violence. I see your point that simulated wholesale slaughter of humans (as in Call of Duty) is certainly distinct from slaughtering animals. What I sought to emphasize was that children have always been exposed to gore, horror, and death, and Call of Duty does not offer a major difference from that. The virtual humans in the game are no more human than a deer in the woods. The crucial element is parental guidance: A parent needs to explain that this is not a real person, why it is improper to harm a real person, etc.
Still, I understand your gripe with even simulating violence towards human beings. I think it varies between violent video games. Call of Duty, for example, offers the worst degree of violence with no competition involved. It is, in essence, a game of hide-and-seek with bits of spraying bullets at other players mixed in. It glorifies war and bloodshed – there is even a level in CoD: Modern Warfare 2 which puts the player in the shoes of a terrorist who mows down crowds of innocents in an airport terminal. As someone who has played this level (and found it pretty disturbing, and not fun at all), I can understand why a child should never see it.
My violent video games of choice are Halo and StarCraft, both of which I see as chess-like. They are games in which the pieces meet violently, but do not look particularly human, nor do they glorify mowing humans down like animals. Halo, for example, pits two teams of “Spartan” warriors against one another in a battle of skills (aiming, dodging, etc.). StarCraft is a strategy game in which the player builds a base and an army, then fights against other players’ armies and bases.
Both of these games are tests of cognitive and competitive ability rather than glorifications of violence, in my view. They strike me as being more in the vein of football/rugby, or wrestling/boxing than a true bloodsport, which is the category I’d ascribe Call of Duty to. Violence, in my view, is not all bad – context is what makes the difference here.
I’ve played StarCraft since I was 7 and Halo since I was 9, and I’ve found that both have helped me in my cognitive development and improved my problem-solving skills. Neither made me more disposed to bursts of anger or violence (but Call of Duty certainly did).
I’ve always wanted to get into the aesthetics of video games, as they’re a unique branch of art which hasn’t been explored much. Perhaps that will be one of my upcoming posts – something along the lines of Halo vs. Call of Duty (both are first-person-shooters, but I’d classify Halo in the romantic school and CoD in the naturalist school).
PS: To clarify, I see games as a unique form of art, and violence in games is not necessarily bad. I approve of games like Halo in the same way that I approve of sports like wrestling, and I do not think that is in any way anti-reason or anti-man.