Upload
liv
View
28
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Evil in Virtual Worlds. Carl David Mildenberger The Philosophy of Computer Games, 7 th International Conference University of Bergen – 2-4 October 2013. Agenda. Introduction Suicide ganking - an example of a virtual evil action? Suicide ganking, Kantianism, and consequentialism - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Evil in Virtual Worlds
Carl David Mildenberger
The Philosophy of Computer Games, 7th International Conference
University of Bergen – 2-4 October 2013
Agenda
1. Introduction
2. Suicide ganking - an example of a virtual evil action?
3. Suicide ganking, Kantianism, and consequentialism
4. Evil in virtual worlds?
5. Conclusion
Agenda – 2/9
1. Introduction
Purpose: showing that there is something similar to morally evil actions in virtual worlds
- e.g. in the virtual worlds of online computer games
- my game of choice: EVE Online, CCP Games, 2003
Motivation: a new dimension to a classical problem
- Evil is a classical problem in moral philosophy
- Evil often discussed in exemplary terms, notably example from real world battlefields: World War II, 9/11, ...
- And: in the light of the information revolution new battlefields emerge
Do we abolish evil just because we interact in virtual worlds?
- ≠ evil... or only extremely bad? I think that evil exists, but never mind.
- ≠ is there evil in games? I think that yes, but is EVE a game anyway?Introduction – 3/9
2. A „Suicide Gank“ (SG) scenario
Suicide ganks – 4/9
2. Suicide ganks: a summary
In purely material terms: on average victim loses €12, perpetrators lose €0.5.
No short-term/material or long-term/strategic benefit for perpetrators
Hardly and act of self-defense
No redistribution from the rich to the poor (in „Robin Hood“ style)
Neither envy nor anger involved, rather boredom
- „Gankers enjoy to be mean, they like getting angry mails from the people whose most precious ship they destroyed. The conflict itself is entertaining to them. But suicide ganks are not a planned thing and there is nothing personal in it. The victims have done nothing to make the gankers angry“ (Eriksen, 2011)
Excessively more destructive than other forms of violence
Rare phenomenon
Predominantly young males involved
Suicide ganks – 5/9
3. SGs, Kantianism,and consequentialism
SGs, Kantianism, Conseqeuntialism – 6/9
What does really count in evaluating evil actions? E.g. Kant vs Arendt
As for the intentions behind SGs
- neither frailty, nor impureness, nor the all too human motives of self-interest, greed, covetousness, anger, envy, or cowardice underlie SGs
- rather: a rejection of the moral law in an act of rebellion using the depraved motive of boredom as guiding principle
As for the consequences of SGs
- both parties lose
- excessively more destructive even than instrumental violence: a 12:1 loss-redistribution ratio compared to 4:1 to piracy
- not the absolute amount counts but the fact that people are willling to invest considerable amounts of effort and time, and to pay a certain amount of money, so that other, innocent players lose 50 times their investment
Evil in virtual worlds – 7/9
4. The problem of evil in virtual worlds
4. Evil in virtual worlds
Subjective experience matters
- the avatar is not a tool – it involves identity-building- “The player is the character. You’re not role-playing as a being, you
are that being; you’re not assuming an identity, you are that identity; you’re not projecting a self, you are that self” (Bartle, 2004, pp. 155)
- losing €12 or €0.5 is not the same as killing and being killed
Virtual moral code matters
- some forms of violence are backed up by the in-game rules (cf. Chapman and Mays: lethal fastball is not murder)
- making other people lose €12 might not be considered evil
- but: killing a ship is evil, as forum discussions show
The nature of virtual space
- a space without physical boundaries
- analogy to states like „in war“, i.e. a temporal instead of a spatial relation
Evil in virtual worlds – 8/9
5. Conclusion
Conclusion – 9/9