The purpose of this paper is to examine the idea that violence in video games is un-ethical. In terms of the ethical approach Utilitarianism, I believe violence in videogames should not be deemed un-ethical. I feel that ultimately, the harm that arises from the violence in videogames does not outweigh the benefits associated with playing the violent video games. In this paper, I will also address the counterargument that violence in videogames can be deemed immoral.
My belief is based off the analysis that Matt McCormick writes in his article, “Is it wrong to play violent video games?” In this article, McCormick explains that for an argument against violent videogames to be successful from a Utilitarian perspective, it must show two things. The first is that there is an actual increase in risk from playing these violent games and the second is that this increase of
…show more content…
According to Waddington, a person could alter McCormick’s position and argue that there only needs to be a “significant potential” for an increase in risk, rather than an actual increase in risk. I would respond by saying that if risks should be viewed in terms of their potential, then benefits should also be view in term of their potential. It would be unfair to have to prove the benefits, but only show significant potential for the risks. I would conclude by saying if you are to judge risks by their potential, then you must do the same with benefits.
Overall, I believe violent video games are not un-ethical from a Utilitarianism approach. This approach requires us to compare the risks and the benefits that arise from the violent videogames. Because there is no evidence that proves violent videos games causes an increased risk in society, it would be wrong to consider these games