Today’s Plan:
- Course Introduction
- An Intro to Ethics
- Let’s Talk Trolley Problem
- Attendance and Intros
- Homework: Read Sicart, “Moral Dilemmas in Computer Games” and complete the Canvas Quiz (not really a quiz)
- Homework: Purchase/Download The Walking Dead
Introduction to Ethics
Today I want to give some sense of what constitutes ethics. I’ll start by attempting to differentiate ethics from morals. Both ethics and morals are a part of what we call practical philosophy–rather than dealing with “what is,” practical philosophy deals with how we should act. In simplest terms, both the study of ethics and morals deal with right and wrong. Generally, morality is thought to deal with personal convictions developed via abstract or religious/spiritual principles. Morals can be stated as laws: “thou shalt not kill.” Ethics are thought to be rules derived from “external” agencies–our secular social/institutional contracts. Ethics are far more fuzzy and ambiguous, and often arise as questions that problematize morals. “Thou shalt kill if a solider in war.” And something can be ethical, but not moral and vice versa. Murder, then, is almost always immoral and usually unethical (except, for say, the soldier example, which we wouldn’t call “murder”). However, adultery is often immoral, but it isn’t necessarily unethical (while it is against our understanding of right/wrong, it isn’t something socially deemed illegal–even legally it is grounds for divorce but not prison).
This is the standard distinction between morals and ethics. I should say that I find this distinction between morality and ethics a bit too simplistic. I think of ethics otherwise. For me, morality is the study of the rules that govern our behavior, our internalization of the rules, what we value and believe. The spiritual-internal vs. secular-external distinction isn’t particularly productive for me. I don’t care if the rules come from state agencies or spiritual institutions. Again, morality is how we develop and internalize the rules: thou shalt not kill. A moral. I am not particularly concerned where the rule comes from or who enforces it.
Ethics, for me, signals how we employ, actualize, our moral values in lived experience. It is how/whether we (choose to) act. If morality is our sense of what should be, ethics is the study of how we actually act. Ethics operates in relation to morality, always in its shadow, and often in the places where morals break down. I think the study of ethics is the most interesting when we encounter a situation in which or moral convictions come into conflict. Again, if we believe that “thou shalt not kill,” then how do we also celebrate the soldier? How do we operate in the face of competing morals?
My understanding of ethics is heavily indebted to the work of philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas’s work encourages us to recognize our aversion to difference, and the lengths humans will go to eliminate alterity (that which is strange, different, unknown or unknowable to them). He jests that we have an allergy to the strange and different, to the other. We seek to “joyously possess” the world as a certain knowledge. Such possession is akin to mastery–to rule the world without question. To eliminate questions that make us uncomfortable. Rather than deal with the other, we desire the same–we desire to know, label, categorize, understand something. Facing something we do not know, or cannot know, brings out the worst in us. To be ethical, for Levinas, is to learn to inhabit this discomfort, disequilibrium and repress the desire to transform something Other into something familiar, what he calls “the same.” To welcome the other as an other, to let them be different, rather than to convert them into the “same” thing that I already know.
Ethics, for Levinas, is learning to recognize and prioritize others, to put their needs ahead of our own. Ethics becomes extra complicated when we realize that others make different demands on us–and no matter how generous we might want to be, we cannot give everything to everyone. To give to one other often means we have to take away from an other. Justice requires I choose between the competing demands of the other and the neighbor.
More than just an analytical science of how we act, ethics for me marks our ability to handle, to process, the unknown. How do we feel, and respond to our feelings, when we encounter the strange? Do we curl back in repulsion? Express exasperation (*why do they do that? that’s so weird?*). Or do we become self-critical? Do we invite reflection (*why don’t I do that?*).
How/do we welcome the stranger? Something different? Further, what happens when we encounter something we cannot control, when we have to make a decision with no clear right answer, when we face something that resists our mastery?
What does this have to do with the distinction between morality and ethics? I believe that the more we recognize and study ethics (as moments of moral indecision), the more we learn to choose when no one true, certain, “right” answer is evident, available, or even possible, the more ethical–the better people–we will become.
Our first major project, which will cover the next 5 weeks, questions whether games, by constructing *sophisticated* ethical problems, can make more ethical in the Levinasian sense I have just worked out.
The Trolley Problem
Let’s talk about the Trolley Problem, created by Foot and complicated by Thompson. Very simply: the trolley problem is a philosophical thought experiment created in the 1970’s by philosopher Philippa Foot. If you have a laptop or mobile device in front of you, then click the following link.
Let’s play 4 quick choose your own adventure games.
So, if you haven’t guessed by now, here is my theory for what video games have learned is their unique province: they can leverage the emotional unrest, affectation, difficulty, disequilibrium of Trolley Problems. Foot’s trolley problem is meant to explore the moral consistency, or lack thereof, people use to make life or death decisions. Video games can proceduralize this thought experiment, to make it more visceral or “real.” We feel the decision–this kind of feeling is called “affective” or pathetic (deriving from the Greek term for emotion, patheos).
In a book or a film, we are left to watch the trolley driver pull the switch or not. The author decides. The author justifies. Perhaps she does so to secretly stir our outrage, to get us to deconstruct her flawed reasoning. She can spur reflection, contemplation, resistance. But we are always a bystander to the action, distanced from the choice. We are witness.
But not so in a game. I remember my first play through of Dragon Age: Origins. The details are a bit foggy–I remember encountering some elves and some werewolves. The werewolves were created by dark elven magic? And then, like Frankenstein’s monster, abandoned by their creators. At some point a wolf had killed an elf. Maybe it was self-defense? I honestly don’t remember. But I remember, unexpectedly, having to decide which species to exterminate. Only one can survive. Neither is innocent. And there is no heroic path to saving them both (well there is, but you are probably only going to have that option if you have made a series of other decisions, and only about 1 in every 10 player unlocks that “perfect” ending). The game forced me to be responsible. I must pull the lever and determine who gets hit by the train.
I’ve played games since roughly 1984 on my Atari 2600. I’ve murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions of aliens and demons and terrorists and zombies and horde (“For the Vangaurd” or “For the Alliance!”). I’ve killed all these things from a moral position that authorizes their death. I’ve never been troubled by all this killing. Those aliens threaten our light. Those demons threaten Tristram. Those terrorists threaten democracy. Those zombies would eat me and the few others remaining in Raccoon City. I killed them all without friction. (Save for Silent Hill 3, one of the greatest mindfuck games of all-time unfortunately lost to history–“they look like monsters to you?”).
But Dragon Age interrupted my joyous possession of the world, my righteous action, my moral foundation. It stung me. This was something different. I introduce the Trolley Problem, the lever, the notions of disequilibrium, ethics, and agency as a way of thinking about games. I imagine many of you are already thinking of games that leverage this dynamic. Soon we will work together to generate lists of games–AAA, mobile, indie–that we can play and explore as a class (in addition to my required experience: Walking Dead episode 1).
Attendance and Intros
Syllabus too (stuff about games).
Homework
As I indicated above, our first project investigates how video games incorporate ethical decision-making. Not all games do this well–what we need is some theoretical material that gives us a lens for viewing and analyzing games.
We’ll be using the lens constructed by scholar Miguel Sicart, first reading one of his essays and then chapters from his book Beyond Choices. As you read Sicart, keep asking yourself: how does the terms, distinctions, ideas he articulates help me answer these questions:
- What should/shouldn’t game designers do to make effective ethical dilemmas in their games?
- What should/shouldn’t players do to have more powerful ethical experiences while playing games?
To get us started, I want to read Sicart’s 2013 article “Moral Dilemmas in Computer Games” (you will find this in the Files section of Canvas). I’m not sure how much experience you have reading academic articles, so I’ve designed a Canvas “Quiz” to help structure your reading. Academic articles often have dense, disciplinary-laden prose; given that these articles are written for experts in the field, they do not always define key terms. Further, academic articles often have to acknowledge key debates even if that isn’t the purpose of the article (for instance, you’ll notice Sicart spends a lot of time reviewing definitions of “game play” early in the article–although I do think that section contains some useful and important information).
I expect reading the article and answering the questions will take you somewhere between an hour to an hour and a 1/2.
