Monday, September 5, 2011
Hasta La Vista Homer!
As Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger used arguments similar to Plato's in The Republic to restrict the use of violent video games for minors. Even though the law was eventually ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, is such a law morally justified? Examining ONE of Plato's arguments. Can a case be made to prohibit video games? Or is the argument flawed or not applicable to video games? Is there any form of entertainment that should be kept out of a teenager's hands (or minds)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Both Plato and Arnold Schwarzenegger want to censor what the children in their respective societies are exposed to. Plato would argue that this law is justified because when playing violent video games, you are pretending to be someone bad. This is a form of imitation and Plato thinks that by imitating someone, you start to become more like them. However, he also states, "when a moderate man comes while telling a story to something said or done by a good man, he'll happily assume the role of that good man and read it out" (92). Plato is therefore saying that it is ok to imitate good people, but not bad people. But how would we distinguish between good and bad people? And who would decide if a character in a video game was good or bad?
ReplyDeleteAnother argument in favor of the law is that violent video games make children more willing to except violence in society. Also, Plato would argue that the characters in video games are not perfect role models and he would not want children to imitate them. While these are all solid arguments in favor of the law, I am not sure that the law is necessary in our society. Parents play a larger role in the raising of children in our society than in Plato's and the responsibility of monitoring what kids are exposed to falls on them. In Plato's society, the entire community is responsible for raising the children and the government has a much more active role in controlling what the children see and do.
I agree with Jennifer. While video games that depict bad people could have a negative effect on children, censorship ultimately falls on parents. If parents believe that their child is able to understand good from bad, and that the child knows that imitating the bad actions portrayed in video games leads to trouble, then they should allow their child access to the video game. Plato would agree with this, as he says in The Republic "When he comes across a degrading character, he won't be prepared to assimilate himself seriously to this inferior person, except on the few good occasions when this character does something good. He'd be ashamed to do so...because he finds it distasteful to mould and conform himself to an inferior stamp" (93). Plato is saying that it is ok to read about bad people as long as the reader is able to distinguish the bad character as an inferior person. If the reader doesn’t view the bad character as inferior, and he starts to imitate the character’s actions, then he should not be allowed to further read the story. Applied to modern day, children should not be allowed to play video games if they are easily influenced by them. However, the parents should take on the responsibility of censoring what their children watch or play. In my opinion, parents should consider the age of their children, and then make a decision. When you buy a video game or movie today, there is a rating on a cover that tells what ages are appropriate for the game or movie. If a video game is intended for mature audiences, parents should have enough common sense to not allow their 8 year old child to play the game.
ReplyDeleteArnold Schwarzenegger and Plato both want to censor certain things with in their communities. In Plato’s community he is trying to censor the way heroes are viewed in poems. While in Schwarzenegger’s case he is trying to censor the children from violent video games. Plato critiques several aspects of Homer’s poetry. The main argument he makes is about the portrayal of heroes within the poems. Plato believes that Homer’s poems should be censored because they portray heroes as being somewhat soft. Plato believes that heroes can’t mourn, or show any sign of weakness. Plato states that this would cause people to think feeling and mourning is acceptable in the community. He continues to argue that heroes must be depicted in a serious manner, not showing any emotion such as laughter. Also, if guardians of the community read Homer’s work, they would think that it is adequate to show such emotion. Ultimately, Plato states that heroes are supposed to be role models, and such behavior would show unacceptable behavior for the community.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Arnold Schwarzenegger claims that video games should be censored for children due to violence. Yet this argument is very flawed in many ways. First off, there is already an age restriction on video games with violence. Not only that, but such a decision of what a child should be able to do is a choice that the parents should make, not the government. One thing that I don’t understand is that most things that are inappropriate for kids and teenagers are already censored, such as movies, games, and locations so I don’t understand why Schwarzenegger would put more restrictions than the ones already in place.
Plato says “a very great deal of importance should be placed upon ensuring that the first stories they hear are best adapted for their moral improvement (73)”. I agree with this statement because I do believe that when a child is growing up we should expose them to things that will teach them to be morally good. However I do not agree with banning materials that some may consider a bad influence on their children from all young people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the censorship of what any child is exposed to should be controlled by their parents. Parents know what they do and do not want their child to see or hear. As a parent it is their job to make sure that their child has the knowledge to decide what the difference between good and bad. As far as banning violent video games from children I do think it is morally justified by trying to keep children from being influenced by bad role models and negative images. But I think the law would not be accepted among the people of our country simply because many believe that they should have control over their child not the government. Plato would argue that watching and playing video games would give the young people the idea that fighting and killing is the ordinary and there is nothing wrong with it, because that’s who they consider their role models (73). I would argue against Plato because if as a community and family do not instill in the children what is wrong and what is right then it is us who have failed our children not the media or what the children read. The media today is already censored and has age appropriate suggestions on movies, games, books, and television shows. Therefore it is the parents responsibility to make sure that their child is not being exposed to negative materials not the government’s responsibility.
The minds of the young in a society are the most precious resources in a society. Both Plato and Arnold Schwarzenegger have the best interests in mind for their respective successor generations, but censorship I believe cannot be something that can be made law. I think that censorship is a morally justified option, but in today's day and age with already so many graphic images censorship is not a viable option. Obviously this does not mean that two-year old should be able to watch a horror movie, but I believe it is overall the parents responsibility to buffer what goes into their children's minds. Parents should ultimately set a good example for their kids, and in doing so I believe that these children will do the right thing. Any form of entertainment can be used in a negative light, yet with all the benefits they have one would have to make a conscience effort to do the wrong thing.
ReplyDeletePlato's argument that media or representational narrative can have negative effects on youth is fundamentally flawed. Plato argues that witnessing or acting out a story that conveys negative emotions can be harmful to the viewer or actor. These feelings can bleed over into a person's real personality and cause that person to behave improperly. For example, a bard who is retelling the Iliad will begin to act improperly after enacting violent scenes. The same negative impact will affect the audience, especially the youth. This experience could supposedly teach them to act violently, dishonorably, and have a false impression of the world around them.
ReplyDeleteThis argument has appeared numerous times in history. In the mid 1800s, the 'experts' of the time said that romance novels should be banned because it gave the youth a fanciful picture of life and taught them to only care about unimportant things. In the middle of the 20th century, comic books were scrutinized by American parents. Now, videogames are in the spotlight. Looking back on history, it is clear that new forms of expression always take time to become accepted by the community. Over time, people realize that these new types of art do not destroy society as they had thought.
While the California ban was originally focused on videogames alone, Brown v. EMA quickly turned into a debate on whether any form of speech containing violence could be banned from minors. Justice Scalia argued that children have long been exposed to The Brothers Grimm fairytales, which contain a fair share of violence. The Court's conclusion was that speech containing violence has not traditionally been banned from minors. Only sexually explicit content can be regulated.
The Supreme Court's ruling does not mean that children should have unrestricted access to violent media. That decision is up to the parents. Striking down California's violent game ban allows the best for everyone. Parents have the right to decide when their children are mature enough to consume more violent content, while artists expressing themselves do not have to fear government intervention.
Plato argues in his Republic that censorship is an important factor to consider when looking at educating children. There are several reasons art should be censored according to Plato. First off, art is an imitation of something else. In Plato’s world, art is an imitation of an imitation of the “really real.” Plato wants to educate children so that they recognize the really real, the true forms, from the imitations. Yet art is an imitation of an imitation and education would be taking a step backwards. Children would then have to learn how to identify the really real from the derivatively real from the imitation of the derivatively real. It seems as if art shouldn’t exist at all since it takes people a step down from reaching the truest forms. However, poetry and such art do exist so Plato believes we need to censor art so that children see heroes and gods in the right light. For example, on page 87, Plato says that people are misrepresented and “they [poets] portray immoral people as happy and moral people as unhappy, and write about the rewards of undiscovered immorality and how morality is good for someone else, but disadvantageous to oneself” (87). In other words, poets are encouraging children to be immoral because poets show that immorality can create happiness. Plato wants everyone to be moral but if one thinks that happiness doesn’t exist in morality, then no one will want to be moral. The base of Plato’s argument lies in the fact that children are influenced by the world around them. I find this a tad problematic because we return to the conflict of nature vs. nurture. Many argue that video games encourage children to be more violent. However, I would argue that no one knows whether these children are more violent because of the video games. Instead, the children may be violent by nature and perhaps it is their violent tendencies that draw their attention to such video games. I agree with Plato’s claim that art is a false imitation and so when children see violence on the game, they think they are seeing the equivalent of real life violence. Yet if children were to experience real life violence it would be a lot different and the children would be scared. So children get the wrong idea and think they can handle witnessing violent situations because they see it all the time on video games but really, when they are actually in that situation they realize it’s completely different. I think that censoring can be good and bad but in the end, I believe in our first amendment right where censoring within limits is the best compromise.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have already said, there are already restrictions on the marketing of violent images to young minds. There are ratings on movies and games, depending on the amount of violence or “inappropriate” content for children. However, as we have established, it is not uncommon for children to gain access to such materials through their parents. Thus, it is necessary to impose a censor on such content. While movies may be violent but still somewhat harmless, it is the virtual reality that children have access to that may cause harm. In the world of a video game, children can experience realistic gameplay, which may include blood and gore, significant amounts of violence, and death. This may desensitize the child’s mind to violence, and because the game is supposed to be realistic, the child might then have the false belief that somewhere in the world, violence like in games is going on. This may cause them to seek the glorification of violence in the games that they play, such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Plato’s beliefs apply much more today than it did at his time. While literature may have been the trend in entertainment at his time, hearing a story about another person creates much less of an imprint on the mind than an addictive video game in which you control the character causing the violence. This imprint is what has the dangerous effect, and hearing about how a hero wept is not going to have the same subconscious implications as going through the act of shooting innocent civilians.
As Robert said, artists have been restricted and attacked because of their potential impacts on the youth for as long as there has been art. To show that Plato’s argument is flawed, let’s look at a comparison. The situations today and in recent history, when compared to the events and debates over content restriction show that we still have the same issues with media and whatnot today as they did in Plato’s era. The important thing to note from this comparison is that we have the same issues for the same reasons as Plato did, just with different forms of content. Plato’s issue was that the act of impersonating or hearing stories about a bad person doing violent and unacceptable things is harmful to the youth and will corrupt society. Specifically, he is referring to Homer’s stories being too graphic for the youth to be exposed to. Today, we are arguing against the widespread violence in video games and media because they supposedly harm the youth. Since the argument and reasoning is the exact same in both cases, we should be able to change the “thing” being argued about and the argument should still hold true from either perspective. Since this should be true, would it really make sense if the parents of today were arguing for the ban of Homer’s works in school? The answer is clearly no, but theoretically, the argument, if valid, should hold for any works deemed as unfit for public consumption no matter when the original argument was made. Since we can clearly see that parents today are not angered by the teaching of Homer in school, we see that the fundamental argument used in both situations is clearly flawed.
ReplyDelete