A reader writes:
There’s a question I’ve been wondering; admittedly, it’s not an issue of great philosophical importance, but still, one that I’d like answered; it has to do with video games. Recently I’ve heard arguments from Priests against the whole idea of violent video games and, to a certain extent, action stories. They argue that any enjoyment from the simulation of violent acts or kills in video games is questionable or outright wrong. They come from the perspective that since violence is only at times a regrettable necessity, simulations of it should not be turned into entertainment. For example, these individuals find it troublesome when players get any sense of satisfaction or accomplishment when they kill enemies in video games. Those I heard make these arguments did not make a distinction between games where the player is a criminal or, say, a heroic soldier fighting evil; the same moral problem applied equally. The question also reminded me of some online posts where some players noted games where the sound effects of punches in games made the punching more satisfying, and a developer asked how to make the hit sound effects in his game more satisfying, and thus the punches in the game more fun for the player. Would you say that these perspectives represent the philosophical tenants of Catholic thought or are sound?
My answer:
A perennial maxim of Catholic theology states “In necessary things unity, in uncertain things, freedom, and in all things love.”
That principle would seem to apply to this question. The simple fact is that there is as yet no specific Magisterial teaching on violent video games. So the default stance would be to affirm we have the freedom of the Gospel in that regard.
To delve a bit deeper into the arguments mentioned against such games, with full respect for the office of the priesthood, my informed layman’s opinion must differ with those estimable fathers.
First, a minor but salient point, the term “violence” is a commonly used misnomer here. In the theological sense, “violence” refers to external coercion which compels a subject to act against his will. So what’s actually being objected to in these games is simulated excessive use of force.
Use of force is governed by the Fifth Commandment, which forbids outright murder of innocents, along with using force disproportionate to what is necessary for self-defense, and also consenting to anger against others to the degree of wishing them death or serious harm. The Fifth Commandment also forbids scandalizing others.
Because a video game is by definition a simulation, the first two proscriptions under the Commandment don’t apply, since no real person is being harmed.
The risks of sin from violent video games would then seem to arise from temptation to arouse illicit anger in players, and/or give scandal to others. As to the first danger, study after study has failed to establish a significant causal link between playing violent video games and real-world aggression. What’s more, simulated violence has always been a natural part of boys’ play, such as Cowboys and Indians and simple roughhousing. Using force may be a regrettable necessity in this fallen world, but the Catechism acknowledges that a necessity it is. And young men do well to learn how and when to use it justly.
The short version is that if playing violent video games doesn’t present a near occasion of sinful anger for you, and knowing that you play them wouldn’t scandalize anyone you have to set an example for, I don’t see how you’d be sinning to play them in moderation.
To be honest, the far bigger dangers posed by video games are temptations to impurity and sloth, but those are separate issues.
Now, for a thrilling, Catholic, and complete action story, read my hit mech saga’s explosive finale:
Before anyone applies the same logic to virtual porn, I will wager that both the Magestrium and the blessed theologian from Aquino have already issued specific teachings against it.
Lumping sex and violence together in regard to media is a false moral equivalence to begin with. Porn produces illicit movements of the lower faculties just by viewing it. Violent images do not as a matter of course incite sinful wrath in viewers. That’s why the former is always and everywhere wrong, while the latter can be taken in moderation.
All pornography was in some fashion ‘virtual’ until the 19th or early 20th century, I believe, so yes. 🙂
Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian types have muddied the water on this issue for too long, just as the PMRC’s influence has lingered on music and the ACT on children’s television.
The greater issue is that we keep allowing those who do not understand art, for whatever reason that may be, to be allowed to govern and control it. We should be in conversation, not attempting to wall ourselves up from each other.
And somehow whenever any of these types get in charge of a medium, it ends up hoisting up the terrible (gangsta rap and modern bubblegum, torture porn, vapid edutainment) at the expense of the majority.
Giving up on art and handing it over to the “misunderstood” and the “educated” is one of the worst mistakes we ever made.
That’s the real damage wrought by letting a handful of monopolies consolidate power over every medium. By the same token, a major blessing of indie and neopatronage is denying grandstanding cranks the ability to play gatekeeper.
What about simulated violations of the First Commandment? 🙂 It’s a live question: There are elements and sidequests in the latest Legend of Zelda game that veer towards outright idol worship.
I’m inclined to say that it’s not malum in se for the same reason that reading pagan literature and plays, playing D&D, etc. are generally considered permissible, but I would be a bit cautious about them for those who are not well-grounded in faith, given the spiritually arid and corrupt culture in which we find ourselves.