Is simulated killing morally correct?
Statement of Intent: I will argue that simulated killing is largely acceptable. It is morally acceptable but it
must be done with the right intentions and motives which will be evident through practical wisdom. Hence
I will be showing that the virtue ethicist’s approach to simulated killing is the most convincing. Whilst
utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and Kantian deontology have similar conclusions on the morality of simulated
killing, the former two are not convincing in their approach. Firstly I will show that Kantian Deontology is
the least convincing in its approach to simulated killing particular in that it fails to understand the value of
other motives and the distinctness of immorality and irrationality. Secondly I will show that whilst
Utilitarianism does a better job, it still faces issues of calculations and intentions. Finally and most crucially
I will show that virtue ethics does the best job at accounting for simulated killing as it is much more
nuanced and particularly agent centred.
RICE 1:
R: Kantian Ethics approach to simulated killing (both watching and playing) is the least convincing. Kant
argues that simulating killing is morally permissible for two reasons. Firstly it is universalisable and
secondly currently the evidence suggests that playing video games does not leads to a damaging of one’s
rational will which is how if it did would violate one’ duty. Firstly, we can say that by focusing on duty, Kant
fails to account the moral value of other motives. According to Kant acting out of duty are the only moral
actions with moral worth. However, suppose a scenario where your friend asks to hop on a game (e/g
CSGO) and when they thank you you reply ‘no worries I only played as it wasn’t damaging my rational will
and wasn’t violating any duties. Your motivation for playing games came from preserving your ability to
fulfil your duties and not from wanting to hang out with your friends. This can quite inhumane and not how
we are in real life. By focusing too much on duty you are ignoring other motives for why people do actions
which are morally correct. Kant falls into a false dichotomy that either actions are done selfishly or out of
duty. Virtue ethicists argue there is another option. A rational cultivation of virtue allows a person to
reliably control their habitual emotional reactions in a morally relevant and interested way. So, emotions
can be reliable. They can also be ‘non-accidentally’ related to the goodness of an action. Virtue ethics
also seems to be more naturally aligned with the practical reality of human psychology and relationships.
I: Kant could respond by saying that he is not trying to stop us from being motivated by our feelings
towards our friends etc. His point is that when we are choosing what to do, how we feel should not be as
important as what is morally right to do, our feelings shouldn't be the determining factor but that doesn't
mean we can’t be motivated by it. So we can be motivated by our friends and love for gaming but it
shouldn’t be the main reason for why we take care of them etc.
C: There is the stronger argument against Kant in which Kant fails to understand why simulated killing is
largely morally permissible. Because it is universaliable. But universability and morality are distinct. There
are many instances where a statement can be universaliable but dosen’t seem moral. If that is the case
then they are distinct and so the reason why simulated killing is allowed is wrong. Adding onto this, Kant
argues that dramatization of immoral killing as moral in a film is wrong because it is irrational as what is
immoral cannot be moral. However is this really the case? Is it moral wrong with imagining something
impossible. Kant hasn’t made the connection that irrationality entails that it is bad.
E: Therefore overall, Kant fails to encapsulate why simulated killing is okay (it dosen’t damage our will and
cause its universalisable) his is why he is the the least convincing of the theories.
RICE 2:
R: Whilst Utilitarianism does a better job and explaining why Simulated Killing may be wrong (may lead to
risk of killing irl it is stronger then simply saying it impacts ‘your duty’ it still has some key issues most
notably that it fails to show the moral worth of intentions which is quite important for issues such as
Is simulated killing morally correct? 1
Statement of Intent: I will argue that simulated killing is largely acceptable. It is morally acceptable but it
must be done with the right intentions and motives which will be evident through practical wisdom. Hence
I will be showing that the virtue ethicist’s approach to simulated killing is the most convincing. Whilst
utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and Kantian deontology have similar conclusions on the morality of simulated
killing, the former two are not convincing in their approach. Firstly I will show that Kantian Deontology is
the least convincing in its approach to simulated killing particular in that it fails to understand the value of
other motives and the distinctness of immorality and irrationality. Secondly I will show that whilst
Utilitarianism does a better job, it still faces issues of calculations and intentions. Finally and most crucially
I will show that virtue ethics does the best job at accounting for simulated killing as it is much more
nuanced and particularly agent centred.
RICE 1:
R: Kantian Ethics approach to simulated killing (both watching and playing) is the least convincing. Kant
argues that simulating killing is morally permissible for two reasons. Firstly it is universalisable and
secondly currently the evidence suggests that playing video games does not leads to a damaging of one’s
rational will which is how if it did would violate one’ duty. Firstly, we can say that by focusing on duty, Kant
fails to account the moral value of other motives. According to Kant acting out of duty are the only moral
actions with moral worth. However, suppose a scenario where your friend asks to hop on a game (e/g
CSGO) and when they thank you you reply ‘no worries I only played as it wasn’t damaging my rational will
and wasn’t violating any duties. Your motivation for playing games came from preserving your ability to
fulfil your duties and not from wanting to hang out with your friends. This can quite inhumane and not how
we are in real life. By focusing too much on duty you are ignoring other motives for why people do actions
which are morally correct. Kant falls into a false dichotomy that either actions are done selfishly or out of
duty. Virtue ethicists argue there is another option. A rational cultivation of virtue allows a person to
reliably control their habitual emotional reactions in a morally relevant and interested way. So, emotions
can be reliable. They can also be ‘non-accidentally’ related to the goodness of an action. Virtue ethics
also seems to be more naturally aligned with the practical reality of human psychology and relationships.
I: Kant could respond by saying that he is not trying to stop us from being motivated by our feelings
towards our friends etc. His point is that when we are choosing what to do, how we feel should not be as
important as what is morally right to do, our feelings shouldn't be the determining factor but that doesn't
mean we can’t be motivated by it. So we can be motivated by our friends and love for gaming but it
shouldn’t be the main reason for why we take care of them etc.
C: There is the stronger argument against Kant in which Kant fails to understand why simulated killing is
largely morally permissible. Because it is universaliable. But universability and morality are distinct. There
are many instances where a statement can be universaliable but dosen’t seem moral. If that is the case
then they are distinct and so the reason why simulated killing is allowed is wrong. Adding onto this, Kant
argues that dramatization of immoral killing as moral in a film is wrong because it is irrational as what is
immoral cannot be moral. However is this really the case? Is it moral wrong with imagining something
impossible. Kant hasn’t made the connection that irrationality entails that it is bad.
E: Therefore overall, Kant fails to encapsulate why simulated killing is okay (it dosen’t damage our will and
cause its universalisable) his is why he is the the least convincing of the theories.
RICE 2:
R: Whilst Utilitarianism does a better job and explaining why Simulated Killing may be wrong (may lead to
risk of killing irl it is stronger then simply saying it impacts ‘your duty’ it still has some key issues most
notably that it fails to show the moral worth of intentions which is quite important for issues such as
Is simulated killing morally correct? 1
