Page 6 of 6

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:01 pm
by FlawedIntellect
Danieltwotwenty wrote:One thing I think is interesting is that playing violent video games has a proven link to increases aggressive behaviour, one could say that it is evidence of causation in terms of fantasising.


Dan
Actually, a number of places tend to say that this assumption is the result of study bias. Some studies show that video games with violence don't necessarily promote aggressiveness. Games with difficulty tend to promote aggressiveness toward the game, and aggressiveness is worsened when the game is poorly designed. It has little to do with social aggression. The aggression is often targeted and aimed specifically at the game and sometimes the developers. Still, some games have very solid controls and this puts the fault or failure of the game on the gamer, but that doesn't reduce the frustration very much for some gamers. Even so, some gamers take pleasure in the challenge and difficulty and enjoy it in this way, while others prefer a more casual approach.

The point being made by some is that fantasy acts as an outlet so that one can act out without causing harm to reality. The problem is that the deed is still being done, albeit in an artificial environment. People do not seem to see this because of their defensiveness in drawing lines between fantasy and reality. Sure, fantasy can be fun, though the thing to be known is that our fantasies reflect the conditions of our hearts, and even though fantasies may not be acted out in reality, they are still being acted out through some outlet.

While in some ways this may provide a "safe" outlet for the dangerous behavior of the general population, it still motivates some people, who eventually get bored of this "safe" outlet and want to do it for real, to go and do it. However, the general population chooses to let the law determine their morality, and hence, in fear of breaking the law, chooses to use the "safe" outlet where there is no actual involvement, instead.

The sin is still being committed, just in a different location that has less negative impact on the world. The problem is, though, that this can cause social isolation from some people.

Curiously enough, the video game cultures tend to be pretty social now with the advent of wifi multiplayer gaming. Most gamers just see games as a mere form of entertainment like a movie or TV show, though they may not realize the content that tends to show from movies and TV shows that can tear away morality.

This is precisely where my dilemma lies, though not with gaming, and more something else...

I will say that while these forms can in some cases provide an alternative "legal" outlet for sin, the problem is that the sin is still there and being committed more frequently. I guess this is perhaps what is meant with each generation being more evil than the previous ones? Sin is being committed, people fail to realize it by dismissing it as "fantasy" and other conflicts ensue.

First Person Shooters and Third Person Shooters, plus certain (but not all) fighting games tend to involve killing the opponent. Basically, take out the enemy and progress onward. It often tends to narrow down to a survival scenario. There are handwaves that may be done to encourage fighting, like the enemies being outright stated to be evil, or them being undead monsters or just the antagonists. Video game bosses need to be defeated, etc... Rating system generally determines how appropriate the game is based on extremity of content. Mild blood, language, or themes (sensual or alcohol, or tobacco) may yield a "T" rating here in the U.S., while games that just have some "mild cartoon violence" (slapstick or comedic gags), or some mild "action violence" without other stuff can be rated "E" to "E10+". More extreme content is rated "M."

A complaint amidst the gamer community is that parents completely and blatantly ignore the rating on the label and get certain games with certain content for their kids, and then the parents complain. While yes, the fault here (legally) is for the parents due to them having access to the material and info on the game and its contents (they're right on the box, rating appears often on both the front and back of the box, with reasons for rating appearing right on the back. The rating is plainly visible and isn't hidden tiny fine print.) and yet disregarding it and purchasing it anyway. Still, does not justify the developers making the game, and it also calls into question the reason for it being made. However, the answer is obvious. They wanted to appeal to the tastes and demographics of the audience that asks for it. But the reason for some of the content does not justify it being made. Even so, this is one of the shortcomings of an economic system. But in short, I'm basically saying that the fault for a game's content and material is on the developers, but the fault for exposure to the children either falls on the children (discovering it from a friend or for themselves), the legal guardian, or the parent. (Should either the guardian or the parent buy the game.)

Granted, this is pretty odd coming from a gamer. (Guess this makes me a hypocrite.)

I play some action sidescroller games and adventure games, and some fighting games. (Capcom's Crossover VS games. I have Tatsunoko VS Capcom.) I also have Metroid Prime Trilogy. (First Person Adventure.) If ya want, I can go into further detail explaining my perception on the matter, but it's really just an opinion.

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:21 pm
by DivineRageFromSpace
jlay wrote:
However, I've never been convinced that any type of fantasy, especially when it is in the realm of fiction, is bad.
Let's take sexual predators. How many sexual predators do you think started without first creating a fantasy world in which they acted out their behaviors?
Also, do you think Hitler would have committed his crimes had he not fantasized a world abscent of the Jew?
Argumentum ad Hitlerum, sir. Besides, it wasn't the fantasy itself that had the negative effect, just like thinking "I'm going to fix the toaster later today" doesn't make the toaster fixed (and doesn't mean that you're actually going to fix the toaster later). And, as FlawedIntellect pointed out, the fantasy in question is just a safe outlet for a dangerous interest. Yes, some people desire for their fantasies to escalate into reality after their fantasies begin to "bore" them; but that's not a problem with the fantasizing, that's a problem with the person blurring the lines between fantasy and reality too much. Blaming a person's fantasy for a crime they committed would be like blaming a murder mystery novel for a real murder: It's not the fault of the fiction, it's the fault of the person who made it reality.

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:21 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
Hi flawed

What do you say to the new studies on the changes in the brain happening in children who play violent video games? I doubt you could have much bias in physiological changes.

I will see if I can find a link to that study.

I do agree with what you are saying, we should be very careful about what we subject ourselves too.


Dan

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:28 pm
by Jac3510
DivineRageFromSpace wrote:In this example, there is a very clear, black-and-white answer: and you either marked the correct one or you marked one of the wrong ones. Every rational person who can figure maths agrees that the correct answer is indeed correct. The correct answer could be representative of intrinsic morals, as you intended it to be, and the rational mathematicians accepting the correct answer could be representative of the "normal" portion of society accepting those morals. Of course, since the example relies on the answer being a definite thing that society can clearly see for themselves, it shouldn't apply to something as undefined (and even subjective, in some cases) as morals. I mean to say that morals, at least in certain circumstances, are something of a Sorites paradox, as the dividing lines between what is moral and what is immoral are often too vague to draw.
Let's make sure we keep separate the discussion how we know what is moral? from what is morality?. The former is an epistemological question. The latter is an ontological question. By way of analogy, suppose you were talking with someone about evolution and creationism, and you were explaining what the views are in extensive detail. Then in response, supposed you were asked, "But how do you know the Bible isn't compatible with evolution?" Now, that's certainly a valid question, but it is a different question from one pertaining to the nature of evolution and the nature of Creationism. Answering the question of the nature of the two concepts will certainly provide you with some bases for a discussion of the epistemological question, but that doesn't make them equivalent.

It may be true that it is difficult at times to know what is right and wrong. But that doesn't challenge the fact that morality itself is an objective part of reality. I'd also make one more point on this: morality is really no harder to figure out than any other aspect of nature. In fact, I'd suggest that even at its hardest, it is easier than most other aspects of reality. How many people can do the math necessary to answer questions about particle physics? I can't. Maybe you can. But does the difficulty change the fact that there is a really correct answer that is correct precisely because that is how reality is? And so it is with morality. Just because some people have difficulty getting their moral sums right doesn't mean that morality itself is difficult to figure out or that there is therefore no objective answer.
And what are morals, in and of themselves? Moreover, how can we be certain that what we're doing follows these morals? "It's just human nature" seems very subjective to me, equivalent to saying, "I felt it was the right thing to do", and "It just came naturally to me". If it just comes naturally to a psychopath to kill a man, then it was in his nature to do so -- and therefore he could argue that it was just human nature, because he's human and it was in his nature. (Granted, such an argument on his part wouldn't hold up in any objective discussion.) What separates his jaded morals from the proper morals of "normal" society?
Again, I'll leave the epistemological question to the side for now ("how can we be certain that what we're doing follows these morals?"). As to the first question, I think I've talked about intrinsic order enough. Let me try a slightly different approach.

Morality is that which is consistent with the good. Immoral behavior is that which intentionally deviates from the good.

That should be an easy enough to accept definition, but it raises another question: what is "the good"? In my view (which, full disclosure, is Aristotelian/Thomistic), good is that aspect of being that emphasizes desirability. What the?!? Bear with me and let me explain!

Get out a piece of paper and draw a circle freehand. Now, next to it, use a compass and draw another circle. If I ask you, which is "better" I have little doubt that you would say that the one drawn with the compass is the better circle. It is "more good" (to use terrible English). What we mean here is that one circle better exemplifies what a true circle actually looks like. To the extent that your circle deviates from a true circle, it is a bad circle. The more it conforms to the true, the better ("more good") it is. In other words, the more the circle you draw actualizes the form of a true circle, the more we call it good. And the less it actualizes that form, the less we call it good (note, by the way, that the same can be said for the word 'true'). We obviously aren't talking about moral goodness yet, but we'll get there. I just want you to see what goodness in general is first.

Now, let's step back a little more and talk about the words "form" and "actualize" in the bolded statement above, because they are key. The "form" of a thing refers to what a thing is. Think about a man. What is a man? Physically, he's just a collection of atoms in this particular configuration. But what makes that particular configuration a man and not a tree? After all, a tree is just a collection of atoms in a particular configuration, too. The key is "in a particular configuration." That particular configuration is a pattern. Matter is informed and therefore behaves/is configured in a particular way. I would submit to you that the forms "man" and "tree" are not something the human mind invents, but rather they are things that the human mind discovers in nature. In other words, there really are men and trees in nature. We don't just see this configuration and decide to label it "man" (NB - I'm not talking about the word "man"; that is arbitrary. For some, the label is ish, for others anthropos, etc. I'm talking about the concept to which all these languages point!). We recognize this configuration is an objective part of nature, and then we come up with a word for that configuration. That configuration is what Aristotelians call "form." Everything that exists has form(s).

So there exists a form called 'circle.' That is, circles are real things. But how do they come into existence? Take the one you drew. You had a piece of paper and a pen. That paper and ink had the potential to form a circle. Put differently, the ink had the potential to exemplify the form of a circle on the paper. That potential, however, would forever be potential until you come along and actually draw that circle. That is, you actualize the potential presently existing in the ink and paper. That is to say, you actualize the form "circle." You bring it into existence.

But how good is your circle? That depends on how closely your circle corresponds to the real form of a circle! So now we can say something more specific about goodness: something is good to the extent that its form is truly actualized. Your freehand circle doesn't actualize the true form of a circle nearly as well as the one you drew with a compass. But notice further that "actualization" means "to bring into existence" (more technically, it means to bring something's potential into reality). That is, the circle exists now though it did not before. And this is key: everything that exists, exists to the degree that its form has been actualized. Think about that a second and I think you will agree. Things have potential to be lots of things that they aren't, but what they are, they are because they had the potential to be that, and that potential was actualized (made exist) by something else. And to the degree that a thing's potential remains potential, it does not exist. I am sitting. I have the potential to be standing. So I really exist as a sitting thing. Soon, I will really exist as a standing thing (once that potentiality is actualized).

But now we are in a position to see something rather profound: to the degree that something exists (= has been actualized) it is good. Why? Because to be actualized is to have the potential of your form be brought into existence. The more of the form "circle" the circle you draw actualizes, the better a circle it is. But what of imperfections? Do they not exist? STRICTLY, imperfections do not exist. STRICTLY, imperfections are the non-existence of a perfection. Blindness, for instance, does not exist. Blindness is actually the non-existence of the ability of the eye to see. For the eye has the natural potential for sight; in a blind person, that potential is never actualized, and we call that imperfection an evil (thus, we learn that evil is always a privation). Likewise, darkness and cold do not exist.

So the general principle is that evil does not exist except as a privation of good (that is, the non-existence of some aspect of a particular form).

Finally, then, we can bring this to bear on moral evil. Mankind has a nature. Part of that nature includes rationality. It includes the recognition of the order intrinsic to the universe (both in its parts and in the whole). Because man recognizes the forms of the universe, he recognizes the natures of things in the universe; therefore, he recognizes what things do and don't do by nature. That is, he recognizes what they are for and not for. That includes himself. He recognizes his own nature. He recognizes, for instance, that being kind to his fellow man is something that is part of his proper nature. He can prove this by giving reasons that he ought to be kind; in fact, reason shows him that he ought not be cruel. But what is reason here? Reason is simply our ability to see and process our own natures. Just as the form of a circle has a particular nature (a 360 degree 2D figure that has a center equidistant from every point on the line), so too the human form has a nature. And just as the circle can be exemplified more or less perfectly, so the human nature can be exemplified more or less perfectly. When we "do good," (e.g., when we are kind), we are exemplifying our nature "better" than when we deviate from our nature (cf. a shape that deviates from what would be a good circle).

But it is evident that we desire our own fulfillment--that is, we desire to have our potentiality actualized. Everything you want, you want because you do not have it. You want it because your nature is such that you have certain potentialities that long to be filled. So a drawn circle "wants" to be "perfectly" circular; so too you want this or that "good." Sometimes, of course, you do evil to get what you perceive to be good. You cheat on a test to get an A, but that is because you desire something good. Your means of acquiring it simply were not appropriate to your nature.

So goodness is that aspect of being (remember, all being is that which is potentiality actualized) presented from the perspective of desirability. Really, good and being are synonymous--they differ only in idea. Applied to ethics, when you act in a way that is contrary to your intrinsic nature (your natural order), you are preventing your true nature from being actualized, and therefore, you have done evil (since that potentiality remains unactualized; which is to say, it does not exist, like the potentiality of the blind eye to see is never actualized). God is Perfectly Good, precisely because He is 100% fully actualized. There is no potentiality in Him whatsoever. Further, God is our ultimate end, so in attaining Him, we are perfected (insofar as all of our potentialities are actualized). Since we desire to have our nature perfected (actualized), God--whether we know it or not--is the ultimate desire. Which is to say, God is pure Being, pure Good considered as desirable.

Now, I know this has been rather technical and long. But I hope this helps you get a hand on what I'm saying. Your thoughts?

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:59 pm
by FlawedIntellect
Danieltwotwenty wrote:Hi flawed

What do you say to the new studies on the changes in the brain happening in children who play violent video games? I doubt you could have much bias in physiological changes.

I will see if I can find a link to that study.

I do agree with what you are saying have we should be very careful about what we subject ourselves too.


Dan
You have me there. Changes in the brain happen to children through numerous experiences, including viewing pornography. It essentially "wires" their brains to have some sort of appeal or attraction to such things. However, this does not constitute them acting out aggressively in other activities. Rather, it just shows that they are conditioned to certain behaviors. People are far from being purely "monkey see monkey do", though this depends on the age, and maturity, that is being addressed. If anything this may merely become an addiction to violent video games. It will not necessarily in all cases bring them to be murderers or rapists. A lack of ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality may lead to this behavior, and/or alternately "boredom" with such a medium coupled with intention to carry such action out for real. (Even so, when most people get bored of a particular part of a medium they merely just go get another of such a medium. That however does not justify it.)

It's been argued here that what makes sin immoral isn't the consequences but the consequences are a symptom.

Similarly, an action committed has a motive and intent behind it (such as a fantasy), but the fantasy is the symptom of the action, as the fantasy doesn't always lead to the action but rather more fantasies.

This doesn't mean that the fantasy isn't a reliable motive to weigh whether or not one intends to do something wrong physically, but it is merely one step or stage of the action. Fantasy is the first stage. Motive is taking the fantasy and considering actually doing it. This is the second stage. Then comes action. just because one has fantasy and motive doesn't mean they will actually do it, and while no, fantasy doesn't constitute legal action by government, it is still wrong on the basis of its contents according to moral laws established by God.

Regardless, one point I was trying to present was that sin is sin, regardless of environment or circumstances. As per addressing murder and killing, in how killing can be justified in an act of self defense, this "exception" is granted in moral law already, and it is debatable as to whether or not it renders "grey areas" in morality. As it was expressed earlier by others, whether or not there are consequences to a sin does not make it any less of a sin. It is merely the consequences that change. Things that are wrong are not wrong because of the consequences, but rather the consequences are merely a symptom of showing that something is wrong.

I myself particularly struggle with certain addictions and urges, so this matter of discussion seems pretty relevant to what I've been experiencing in my head.

"Fantasy", depending on how it is handled, is able to be something safe and fun, but granted, one must recognize that there is care to be taken with fantasy. What we fantasize and what we think and say reflect what's in our hearts. If anything, we can see that what is in our hearts isn't always good.

It is apparent that the thought of why something is wrong is due to the consequences. Consequences and sin are relevant to one another. However, consequences are not what makes sin immoral and wrong. Instead, what makes sin immoral and wrong is that God defines it as such. The consequences are merely a symptom. They are not the reason.

Particularly, I have found myself vulnerable to thinking that if it's in my head it's okay, but I know this isn't the case. So here is one dilemma. Is not the mere thought and desire relevant to a certain action as wrong as the action itself in God's eyes? Thus the fantasy itself is just as wrong as the action. It reflects the condition of one's heart and it can show how in line one is with God's will.



As per fantasy, the general population would assume that fantasy is healthy as a sort of escape from reality and as an outlet for an urge or desire in a way without consequences. However, the fantasy may not necessarily be healthy, and it being unhealthy is because it is wrong, but it being wrong is according to objective standards set up by God rather than the consequences. People assume that taking the consequence of the action away keeps the action from being wrong. However, it is merely the wrongdoing being repackaged in a new wrapper. There's less damage to others, but there's more personal damage.

If anything, I have to admit that I've taken the bait on this many a time, unfortunately, and still struggle with certain issues. It's rather recent that I'm starting to see this, and even then I'm still having a hard time. Anyone remember the main site's article on "Why Sex with Robots is Always Wrong"? ( http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/s ... obots.html ) If anything, the premise behind that was that taking away the consequences of sin degrades the morality of a society and causes more damage in ways that people might not even realize. The consequences are still there, just repackaged in a different way. The sin is still there, just repackaged.

Same thing, different look, different consequences, and same final judgment.

Even though conditionals may render it different, the action is still the same. The difference is where and how it happens.

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:04 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
I myself particularly struggle with certain addictions and urges, so this matter of discussion seems pretty relevant to what I've been experiencing in my head.
Amen.

Re: Where do you guys stand?

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:11 am
by PaulSacramento
DivineRageFromSpace wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:I was brought up with violent cartoons, love kung fu flicks and samurai blood baths, have been doing MA since I was 9 ( I'm gonna be 43 this year), violence has been a part of my life since I was a kid ( worked as a doorman, served as a peackeeper) and I am not a violent person, dislike violence and do my best to avoid it.
I also grew up with violence and sex in the media without becoming a mass murderer or a rapist! What a coincidence! :D
. . . The point being is that the problems like violence, sexual perversions and such are NOT created by "outside influences" BUT they ( those influences) can make one thing they are "ok" or at least "tolerable" perhaps even "desirable".
Very true: Although violent fantasies can desensitize people to real violence, they don't necessarily cause it.
Indeed and those predisposed to certain urges and acts will find "validity" in them when they see them "accepted" by the mainstream media.
And by accepted I mean AVAILABLE.