The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Skyrim), despite its liberal violence, does not allow depicted children to die, by fault of the player's character (or avatar), NPCs (non-player characters) or the environment. Because of this, a player going by the name of Kharmah published a mod, 'Killable Children', on the Steam Workshop that disposes of this restriction. Needless to say, this caused quite a controversy, with supporters of its release pointing out improved realism and freedom for the player, and others raising morals and ethics against it.The ingame killing of children, with the special status their real-life counterparts enjoy, is a contentious issue for many computer game developers, who are well concerned about their business and social standing. In forming an opinion on it, two matters should be considered:
- Whether the killing of real-life children is unethical
- Whether the killing of ingame children raises material real-life consequences.
Especially heinous
Almost anyone of sound mind would agree that killing a fellow human being is immoral. In reaching that conclusion, it may be raised that life is sacred, that every human being has a natural right to it from birth, that every member of Homo sapiens has a duty to further the species, or that one's automatic dignity and self-worth is to be respected. Indeed, virtually all governments on Earth outlaw homicidal acts, be it murder, manslaughter or (in many cases) assisting in suicide. With unnatural adult death depicted so frequently in print, cinematographic film and computer games and that of children rather rare, one may wonder what makes the latter an exception.
Children are widely held to be innocent; that is, they are incapable of immoral acts. This is because, at such a young age, their sense of ethics is similarly still developing, and so cannot form a moral judgement on any given action of theirs. As a result, they must be treated in a different way to adult offenders; in particular, the former cannot be punished as harshly as the latter, and the former often is taught 'how bad' the offending conduct is, so that their ethics develops close to those of (usually) mainstream society.
In addition, children are widely seen to be vulnerable and defenceless. Lacking the required independence, they must be nurtured and protected by caring adults until such time that they can set out on their own as adults themselves. Until then, they are too lacking in knowledge to know how to support themselves, and too physically frail to defend themselves. They also would not know how to properly respond to an act of violence.
Children thus enjoy a special status, one often recognised in legal systems around the world. In common law jurisdictions, at least, children from newborn to at least seven years of age are legally incapable of committing a crime, as they are deemed to lack the ability to form a mens rea (fault elements in Australia, or 'guilty mind'), an element to be established in court. (For reference, the other element is an actus reus, or physical elements (in Australia) or 'wrongful act/omission'.) They are afforded the legal defence of infancy, one that recognises their incomplete development, as well as the responsible adult's duty to use the child's naivety to shape the latter's sense of ethics.
Considering the above, it is virtually universally agreed that the intentional killing of children, at least in real life, is unethical, let alone criminal.
Second lives
A computer game, unless it is intended to be historically accurate, has no bearing on real-life events. Such is the nature of fictional literature, a sandbox where ideas and causations can be contrived, tinkered with or otherwise investigated without actual repercussions beyond the consuming of the resources required to produce the work. Even where the computer game in question is intended as a history lesson, it merely recalls past events and will not (conceivably) affect the events of the present or future. Thus, it is a far cry to suggest that an ingame killing of a child, as an event, is equivalent to one's happening in real life.
While the beforementioned is hardly contentious and raised, another, currently evolving, issue is how computer games affect actual behaviour. Numerous scientific studies have been done on the aggressive content. However, for many of them finding a link, their validities have been criticised as being inconclusive, perhaps because of limitations in the method used, or the interpretation of the results. It is then commonly held that the player's own personality affects their aggression more so than the computer game.
Even if the (academic) literature ends up indicating a link, the prospect of mortal ingame children may still reduce aggression in other ways. In a computer game with as much freedom as Skyrim and including the ability to kill ingame children, not only can they die due to the avatar but also by the actions (or omissions) of NPCs, perhaps fire (or other) -breathing dragons. There then is an encouragement for the player to defend such children from harm, and in doing so, show concern for their safety and security. This mirrors parental or other care for a real-life child's wellbeing, care that is well respected and admired.
As a side issue, additional concerns may be raised about the scope of a work's purpose; in particular, the mod's author, as well as many posting comments to its webpage, claim that Bethesda, through Skyrim, "force[s] morals" onto the responder. It should be considered that the author, subject to content ratings and classifications, has free reign over how their work turns out, and may accept or reject suggestions, criticisms or otherwise. In addition, in a free-speaking society, the adult em>responder is at liberty to decide whether to continue responding to the work or stop reading, viewing or playing it, as well as whether to accept the discourse or reject it. Thus, here, Bethesda is in no position to force morals onto the player, nor the player to dictate which morals are to be communicated in the work.
The sins of the avatar and the sins of the player
In cases excluding the exposure of children and persons not of sound mind to it, the virtual death of a child can safely be taken lightly. However, Bethesda is loathe to allow this to happen in their unmodified Skyrim, given what may well be mainstream community standards. In holding this apparent standard, members may confuse the two aforementioned distinct matters, or even refute scientific evidence, and that itself becomes cause for concern.
Bibliography
- Black Hawk Down (2001), motion picture, Revolution Studios Distribution Company LLC. Distributed by Jerry Bruckheimer, Inc..
- Durkin, Kevin & Aisbett, Kate (1999), Computer Games and Australians Today, report, Classification Board [of Australia], viewed 12 May 2012, <http://www.classification.gov.au/Documents/80000CPB%20-%20Computer%20Games%20and%20Australians%20Today%20(1999)%20-%20Commissioned%20Research256815.pdf>.
- The Simpsons: Grade School Confidential (1997), television program, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.
- Steam Workshop :: Killable Children (2012), database entry of computer game modification, Valve Corporation, viewed 6 May 2012, <http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=41084497&searchtext=>.
- Terry, Andrew & Giugni, Des (2009), Business and the Law, 5th edn, Cengage Learning, South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment