Is it unethical to torture a virtual being?

[Gamer4Fire]

A lot of people have or have seen those virtual pets. And I'm sure that plenty of people have been annoyed to the point where they wanted to kill the little things, but due to a lack of features were unable to do so. So you tossed it in a closet or drawer and forgot about it. While this was happening the virtual being was being neglected, crying for food and companionship. Now, was it ethical to neglect and torture that virtual being? And to what extent is it ethical to treat a virtual being?

In some of those games there is an option to punish the virtual pets for doing bad things. For example, in the Black and White series, you could punish or coddle your creature to promote or halt certain behaviors. Is it ethical to mistreat or torture a virtual being like that?

Then again, what if a virtual being was created specifically to torture? There are plenty of flash games to hurt and/or kill your least favorite celebrities. And I've seen a few torture the stick dude games on Newgrounds. I don't really think stick dudes qualify for human rights. But is it unethical to torture and kill virtual beings created specifically to be tortured and killed? And why?

-> Link to a stick dude torture game. Not for the faint of heart. <-

In certain competitive games, the entire goal is to kill your opponent. Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Counter Strike, Mario Kart. The player behind the avatar might get upset, annoyed, determined or amused by the destruction of their avatar. Since they are their avatar, do they have a say in how it is treated or is it the avatar itself that determines whether it is being tortured or unduly treated? In MMOs, you have literally millions of people playing. In games such as second life, is it ethical to mistreat its inhabitants?

And I know that empathy in humans is important. But what about creating systems that simulate emotional and physical responses. Like in Fable, is it unethical to abuse a simulated person with simulated emotions? Where do we draw the line between simulation and actualization?

I personally don't see the problem with it, due to the fact that they are only emulating a response that they were programmed to. If we ever created a system that actually felt pain and emotions, I might have to re-evaluate that position.

 

[Sandy]

I used to kill my Sims characters all the time. Does that make me a bad person? Probably.
Do I care? Not at all

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Slightly off topic, but how do you get into the higher pain categories in that game?

XD Should tip you off that I don't think it's unethical at all to torture what doesn't actually exist. It is fun though.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

A virtual being is not actually there, so if you are torturing it, you're not torturing anything. It is okay to hurt things if they aren't real. They don't feel pain or emotion, so it doesn't matter.

But, just as an example, what about C3P0 from star wars? As annoying as he is, he is extreamly human - like. Is it okay to torture him (If he existed)? This one is a little different, but I still say it's okay, since he only appears human. What does everyone else think about it?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

How we treat our creations is an important part of a society. Creating something to emulate pain and distress for the sheer pleasure of giving it pain and distress (the NPCs in Fable would be a good example in an evil campaign) says something about us.

And C3PO should not have been programmed to be such a loser. It would be a kindness to torture it into oblivion.

 

[Teebs]

I don't think it is unethical. You speak of games such as Counter-Strike, Mortal Kombat, etc. All the characters that you play against in those games are trying to kill you (except if you are on a team). This is simply defending yourself in the game. If you kill them, they deserved it because they were trying to kill you.

Now, games that you kill innocent bystanders, that's a different story... (i.e. GTA)

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Now, games that you kill innocent bystanders, that's a different story... (i.e. GTA)

Explain.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

Eh, playing games like this does speak badly of us as a society. But it's pretty much common knowledge that Americans are entertained by violence, scandal, and the general dismay of other humans. So I figure, as long as it keeps us entertained, and we're not ACTUALLY doing anything like it in real life, then why not stop it?

Plus, the market really decides stuff like this. Money is man's greatest motivator. If there's someone willing to pay for it, it shall exist. Since it's here, we might as well have fun with it.

 

[Mediocre]

On the subject of causing virtual beings to feel "pain", I don't think it's immoral at all. That would be different if there was some sort of AI that was self aware or even felt a sensation like pain, as we understand it. However, at this time there is no such AI, and I don't think I need to concern myself too much with the hypothetical.

Of course, that does not mean that the "torture" of virtual creatures cannot have negative repercussions (such as desensitization to the pain of others). Still, the action is neither inherently moral or immoral. It's morally neutral, really.

If there's someone willing to pay for it, it shall exist.

I'll pay ten bucks for a time machine. Find one for me and send it to me via UPS, please.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

I'll pay ten bucks for a time machine. Find one for me and send it to me via UPS, please.

Watch Napolean Dynamite. Crap like that actually does happen. If people are willing to pay moeny for something, it will exist. Will it do exactly what they think it will? Probably not.

 

[YellowPikmin]

If you understand what it means to torture, the concept of torturing a virtual being doesn't even make sense. The "being" doesn't feel pain, no harm is caused, and no suffering occurs. Virtual characters are simply computer data, programmed to react to certain things in certain ways, but you can't torture them any more than you can torture a stuffed toy.

 

[Ledger_Damayn]

If you understand what it means to torture, the concept of torturing a virtual being doesn't even make sense. The "being" doesn't feel pain, no harm is caused, and no suffering occurs. Virtual characters are simply computer data, programmed to react to certain things in certain ways, but you can't torture them any more than you can torture a stuffed toy.

Just for fun, someone should program a toy with artificial nerve endings that could respond to excessive stimuli. And have it scream and beg for the torture to end. A CPU hidden in a brain shaped casing just for fun. And have the toy spaz around when tortured.

It would make for a pretty entertaining play-thing.

Morbid, but true.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Mini-bump.

It is a bit split, in my opinion. Torture is wrong, but is it really "torture" if the thing doesn't feel pain? Not really. But then again, are you that much of a sadist that you must torture anything within reach, virtual or otherwise?

 

[Surri-Sama]

This would be perfectly fine if it stayed in the game 100%, as why not? It may even relieve stress!

But...North Amricans (I say this because all to often Canada and Mexico get left out of the mix) can not leave gaming ideas to just games, and because of this in some peoples heads it would decensatize people to crule torture and murder, and would lead to actions based opon what someone "could do" in a game which makes it uneithical as it promotes violence in socity

 

[Deleted member]

Torture is wrong, but is it really "torture" if the thing doesn't feel pain? ?

i dont think its even torture if it doesnt even feel pain let alone not even exist.

This would be perfectly fine if it stayed in the game 100%, as why not? It may even relieve stress!

But...North Amricans (I say this because all to often Canada and Mexico get left out of the mix) can not leave gaming ideas to just games, and because of this in some peoples heads it would decensatize people to crule torture and murder, and would lead to actions based opon what someone "could do" in a game which makes it uneithical as it promotes violence in socity

this is the reason right here why i disagree with torture in games.it may be a great way to relieve stress for some but the more that goes on the more common it becomes and even pushes people to do some pretty bad things such as theft and murder and sometimes not even realizing what has caused the influence.

but overall i feel as though its immoral just because if you were doing it you know how you feel as far as you know (whether you think its wrong or not)but how would you feel if your 4 year old son or daughter was eager to get home from school and you ask "why?" and they say "to beat the kitten!"how would that make you feel then?when it comes to children i think people put alot more thought into these kinds of subjects.

these kinds of things are geared towards people that wants to see things suffer.its not the fact whether something suffers or not that makes it immoral its the fact that the person doing it is doing it because thats what they want to see happen period.if they did it in real life theyd go to jail of course.

 

[IceEmblem]

Unethical, no. But I think it is just sick if someone gets pleasure out of torturing any being, virtual or not.

 

[forboxgux]

So I guess those little flash torture animations that I played back in the day are out of the question with you guys...

 

[Surri-Sama]

Unethical, no. But I think it is just sick if someone gets pleasure out of torturing any being, virtual or not.

could you post a reason why you think its ethical to be torturing a virtual being?

 

[Bazooka Lucca]

We all know it's unethical to torture a real human being.

I personally don't think it's unethical to torture a virtual human being. Reason being that a virtual being doesn't feel pain/emotional trauma the way a real being would. If it can't feel pain or emotion then how can it be tortured? It can't.

But the representation of torturing a virtual being LOOKS unethical. Is mimicking something that is unethical, unethical? Take grand theft auto for example- all the things you do in the game are for the most part unethical, but in reality you're just pushing buttons on a controller and sending electrons from on part of the machine to another.

 

[Blackadder]

Fear my wall of text!

You know, I often can't bring myself to torture things on games, or feel bad about it if I do so. Only, however, when the game makes you think about it or the reactions are real enough.

For instance, I've mowed down hundreds, if not thousands, of people in GTA. All the time. It's unrealistic, that game, it's escapist. The people scream and run away, but hey... they're all portrayed as stupid and rude anyway, plus it's not like the squirm in pain. It's played for laughs, really.

Now, in a game like The Punisher, torturing the crooks is one of the games gimmicks. I would often interrogate them, then kill them, and then run along. The end. I'm done there. Other times, however, they would randomly scream out something other than some untrue "I'll do good!" comment, and the game will give you a fast, and often violent picture (or "flashback") of Frank's, which is related to what the scum said. A few memorable ones were "I was only following orders!" (Flash back of Frank in the army) a sobbing "I just got married!" (BOOM FRANK'S WIFE) and the cliché "I'm gonna be a daddy!" (take a guess..). In about 90% of these situations, I would stop and think about what I'm doing, and let the guy go. Since I don't read game manuals, I had no idea this was a game featu8re, and the first time it happened I actually stopped and stared at the screen and looked at what I was doing. I had a slab of knifes over a man's head, watching him squirm and cry. I actually began to think of what horros I was doing, and couldn't bring myself to end the man's life. (Of course, he was one in 40 or so to get out alive..)

Another example is MGS3. The game stretches the point of enemies in war only being enemies in relative terms, and that the Russians were once close friend’s with America. I would avoid killing as much as possible, feeling it would be 'wrong'.

However, during one of my "muck around" runs of the game, I was killing everyone and everything, as soullessly as I could. A notable one was the man I dragged into a toilet, and tortured him at length. I can't say I felt too bad, more so chilled by the fact that I was torturing a man in a building populated by people, who had NO idea this was happening. After killing him, eventually, I shoved him in the cubical and beagn to think of what I'd done, and how when his body was found, the murder could only be described as 'sadistic'.

With the note on virtual pets, my brother and I once had tamagotchis (Didn't we all?) which, as always, eventually became the bane of our existence. We then locked it in a draw, and went on our business. The **** thing wouldn't die. It kept making a high-pitched squealing noise, which I personally found horrible to put up with, party because it was annoying as ALL F*CK, and partly because I felt awful for the poor, virtual thing.
It died eventually, of course, though I felt awful for it.

Is it unethical? No, of course not. It's not a real being. It's a computer.
Is it fun? Oftentimes, yes. We all have our inner munchkin!

Unethical, no. But I think it is just sick if someone gets pleasure out of torturing any being, virtual or not.

I get pleasure out of it in GTA and such, which is really making larks of it, though in games that make note of it, I get chills more than anything.
I found something somewhat thrilling by these chills though, which is probably why I do it sometimes on "muck around" files.

EDIT:
*looks at spelling errors in post*
See, this is why I really should use spell check when I type anything at night. Ever.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I think people are missing the greater point when they talk about this. The question is not whether you are harming the virtual being (of course you aren't), but whether you are harming yourself, or less directly, your community.

Personally, I'm more than a little unsure about this, because psychology is still very much a fledgling science. There's just so much that we don't know, and so it's hard to draw any definite conclusions.

However, my gut reaction says that escapism is, for the most part, merely escapism, especially if you make a conscious effort to be moral in other parts of your life.

 

[Steck]

Well...it can't be unethical. Virtual beings don't really know they are being tortured, they don't feel pain, they are not "aware" of anything. They are just an extension of the game programing. "Ethics", in my opinion can't go beyond the interpersonal relationships humans and other animals.
On the other hand it could be a sign that the torturer is a sadistic freak. But... sometimes the killing is part of the gaming experience. GTA would not be GTA if you could not randomly decide to shoot a person. It would make the game seem... incomplete. Would Brawl be even playable if you did not have opponents (in single player) to fight and KO to their doom beyond the horizon?

 

[AltF4]

Torture is a bit of an easy question to answer, because computers do not feel pain in the way that we do. You can't really torture it.

But what about death? If we create a virtual being, is it unethical to turn it off?

It opens up a can of worms that involves talking about:
-The nature of the self
-The nature of intelligence
-Dualism vs materialism
-The Turing test
-Ethics in general

 

[Taymond]

I don't really feel it could be called unethical to cause a virtual creature pain. At the foundation of ethics, you're considering how a person deserves to be treated, what rights they have as a being.

A virtual creation isn't... real. Without sentience, it cannot "deserve" to be treated any way.

But, a person taking pleasure in the pain of a virtual creation is just as potentially harmful as taking pleasure in the pain of any living thing. It's just as possible for virtual torture to encourage sadistic behavior.

That said, I also don't have any problems mowing down pedestrians in GTA. When you pick up that game, you kinda have to learn to just set aside any moral reservations you really have and just enjoy the fact that the game isn't real. Behavior in the game that would be sadistic in real life is just.. funny. One of my favorite things to do while playing that game is to think about how absurd everything that happens in that game would be in the real world, particularly ridiculous chases.

Conversely, however, in games like Splinter Cell, I typically do a non-lethal incapacitating move when I sneak up on an enemy from behind. Those games are intentionally imbued with a high degree of realism, they're designed with a feel for reality, and a non-lethal attack just seems more appropriate in a relatively realistic setting. It also plays on the character of Sam Fisher. He's a hardened soldier, but he has a degree of humanity, as well. I'm inclined to believe he probably would avoid unneeded death, even amongst his enemies. As a soldier, he must realize that underlings are less responsible for their actions than the people in control, and would understand that they may not really have much choice in their actions, depending on the level of corruption the government is in.

In Splinter Cell, however, a non-lethal attack lasts the entire level. If it were possible for an enemy to wake up from a non-lethal attack, I would definitely do a lethal one, instead. My goals, and Sam Fishers goals, are far too important to risk late detection before our objectives are complete. Unnecessary bloodshed is avoided, but carrying out your objective is primary.

Unethical? No. Potentially dangerous, though? Yes.

 

[behemoth]

Well, what is your definition of "know" as far as knowing it's being tortured? God, it's programming time !

I mean, if I was programming this thing, then the code would "know" when it was being tortured. I mean, if it didn't, how would you torture it? The code for the torture is running, therefore it is being tortured.

You could even go so far as to say that the program resents being tortured, because if the program exits when the thing is killed, each little hit point gone is another step closer to non-existence.

Like the above poster said, is it ethical to reach the endpoint in a program? I mean, I'm a programmer, I've probably killed 80 virtual beings today (I'm debugging some code).

I believe it was said before, but this situation is just one of those mirrors you hold up to yourself. If you enjoy it, ask why.

As for me, I agree with Taymond and another poster above: it depends on the context in which it happens in the virtual world.

I will be interested to see people's reaction to my game, as I have endeavoured to pour philosophical dilemma into almost all of the violence that takes place.

 

[The Executive]

As for me, I agree with Taymond and another poster above: it depends on the context in which it happens in the virtual world.

Agreed.

In games like GTA, the player is rewarded for exhibiting behaviors that one would think unfathomable by society's standards. Things such as mowing down dozens of nameless, faceless people in a Rhino tank are commonplace. But, the level of realism and accountability in games like that is almost nonexistent (if the police catch you for performing a 'wrong' action, the game merely restarts at a save point, no negative repercussions are felt by the player). Is it unethical to go on a killing spree in GTA? I would say not necessarily, because you are not killing 'people' to kill 'people', you're doing it because that is what is required to progress through the game, which is presumably why you turned it on in the first place. In order to obtain status A (progress and gratification), you must first perform potentially undesirable action B (vehicular homicide). If this were a real-life situation, I'm sure many people would not do it, but I see nothing wrong with enacting this in a virtual realm (it's a good outlet for certain impulses). Nothing is damaged, save maybe your sensitivity to 'killing', as some people would have it.

Conversely, in games like Metal Gear Solid 3, the level of realism is drastically heightened, and the player is forced to make a judgment call. It is possible to play through the game without firing a single lethal shot, and the game does not reward killing (you get more items from unconscious soldiers than dead ones). When you do shoot to kill somebody with the intention of ending their virtual life, they don't jerk about in a cartoony fashion and flop to the ground, disappearing and respawning around the next corner. They scream, they collapse, and they die. Blood pools around their body, and it does not disappear. In most cases, they do not come back. The reality of "I just killed this person" is much more apparent. Yes, it's only a game, but the developers made it so that you are made aware of the consequences of your actions. There are no real life negative repercussions, but there is a certain 'moral dilemma' involved. If it is completely unnecessary to kill a 'person' in this game (and in most cases, it is, along with possibly being detrimental), then I equate this with 'torture', and thus being unethical. Have I done it? Yes. Does that mean it didn't affect me? No.

As others have said, context is important.

 

[RBinator]

I'm wondering how Mario Kart got listed with those other games, considering that racing, not killing other players, is the primary goal, and the most harm you can do to other players is delay their progress to the finish line. With that out of the way...

In a word, no. Until we reach the point where virtual beings can be treated like people with basic rights and that kind of stuff, I don't see this as being unethical. Virtual beings have to be programmed to be "tortured", so the programmers have to first open up the possibility, even if they don't intend people to actively want to do this.

However, I do think this does say something about us. I believe that humans by nature are beings of violence and that we each have a "dark side". Why do many of us enjoy doing stuff in a virtual setting that in real life, we would never condone? Even in a setting where such deviant behavior is not needed to progress the game, doesn't going out of our way to do it somehow suggest that we not totally against the idea? Understand where I'm coming from? For some reason, I can't seem to explain this very well, having deleted sentences that I felt attempted to explained, but later felt didn't actually work very well.

As for the possibility of leading to such actions against real people, doesn't this only affect people that already had the ideas in their mind or were unstable to begin with? In other words, won't only criminals or insane people just get more creative, when they already had the basic idea in their mind? How would say, a very moral (going by standard morals) and stable person, having "tortured" virtual beings, suddenly discard their morals and commit such actions against real people?

 

[The Executive]

I'm wondering how Mario Kart got listed with those other games, considering that racing, not killing other players, is the primary goal, and the most harm you can do to other players is delay their progress to the finish line. With that out of the way...

In a word, no. Until we reach the point where virtual beings can be treated like people with basic rights and that kind of stuff, I don't see this as being unethical. Virtual beings have to be programmed to be "tortured", so the programmers have to first open up the possibility, even if they don't intend people to actively want to do this.

However, I do think this does say something about us. I believe that humans by nature are beings of violence and that we each have a "dark side". Why do many of us enjoy doing stuff in a virtual setting that in real life, we would never condone? Even in a setting where such deviant behavior is not needed to progress the game, doesn't going out of our way to do it somehow suggest that we not totally against the idea? Understand where I'm coming from? For some reason, I can't seem to explain this very well, having deleted sentences that I felt attempted to explained, but later felt didn't actually work very well.

As for the possibility of leading to such actions against real people, doesn't this only affect people that already had the ideas in their mind or were unstable to begin with? In other words, won't only criminals or insane people just get more creative, when they already had the basic idea in their mind? How would say, a very moral (going by standard morals) and stable person, having "tortured" virtual beings, suddenly discard their morals and commit such actions against real people?

Yes, it does. Most normal people just use violent games as outlets for impulses. Take Halo, for example. A cash cow based on the most basic of human instincts: hunting and killing.

Completely agree about Mario Kart...There's nothing that can even be remotely construed as 'torture', and the only violent behavior I've seen induced by that game was due to the rubberband A.I..

 

[ScottSadistic]

If you understand what it means to torture, the concept of torturing a virtual being doesn't even make sense. The "being" doesn't feel pain, no harm is caused, and no suffering occurs. Virtual characters are simply computer data, programmed to react to certain things in certain ways, but you can't torture them any more than you can torture a stuffed toy.

Im with YP. u cant torture a virtual being b/c like he said...they feel nothing. they r nothing but data...a collection of 1's and 0's. thats all. they do not feel pain, or even emotion

 

[DRaGZ]

Any "emotion" being presented by "virtual being", as per the technology currently available to us, is programmed in by the users as simple measures of perceptual feedback to convey feelings of pain, sadness, etc. It has nothing to do with actual emotion.

On the other hand, if somehow an artificial neural network became sentient enough for it to want to do certain things and not have other things be done to it, then we'll have ethical issues arise. Fortunately, we are not at that stage yet.

 

[The Executive]

Is it still considered torture if the recipient does not actually "feel" pain, but you believe you are performing torture?

 

[ComradeSAL]

Is it still considered torture if the recipient does not actually "feel" pain, but you believe you are performing torture?

An interesting question, but one that doesn't apply here, I think. Most people don't believe they are actually torturing another being when they play GTA.

 

[Surri-Sama]

An interesting question, but one that doesn't apply here, I think. Most people don't believe they are actually torturing another being when they play GTA.

This is true. This is also why I think it goes past just “torturing a virtual being” because it does desensitize people to murder and violence.

You cannot torture a virtual being, but that does not mean, killing and ****** in a game is ethical. I think it still may have an affect (even if it is minuscule) on younger kids, and there for I must say my opinion is…

It is unethical to allow a younger child to murder and be progressively violent in a game, just for the sake of playing the game.

 

[behemoth]

This is true. This is also why I think it goes past just “torturing a virtual being” because it does desensitize people to murder and violence.

You cannot torture a virtual being, but that does not mean, killing and ****** in a game is ethical. I think it still may have an affect (even if it is minuscule) on younger kids, and there for I must say my opinion is…

It is unethical to allow a younger child to murder and be progressively violent in a game, just for the sake of playing the game.

This is a non-argument, though the one that is brought against these types of games all the time: this is why there are ratings.

Children shouldn't play these games.

Please don't use the argument, "but they will anyways!" This is not an argument against the games either; this goes to parents needing to actually parent, and not just delegate the job to the tv, video games, or their wallet.

 

[Surri-Sama]

This is a non-argument, though the one that is brought against these types of games all the time: this is why there are ratings.

Children shouldn't play these games.

Please don't use the argument, "but they will anyways!" This is not an argument against the games either; this goes to parents needing to actually parent, and not just delegate the job to the tv, video games, or their wallet.

I understand this, I am not saying anyone is at fault, or that anything can even be done. I just think its only unethical for a younger child to play these games, that’s it.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

This reminds me of Milgram's Experiment. For those who don't know, Milgram's Experiment was a test by a man named Stanley Milgram which was conducted in 1961. There were 3 people involved in this experiment: Milgram, a shocker, and a shock recipient. Milgram would take the "shocker" and bring them into a room with a window showing another room. Through the window was a man sitting in a chair connected to wires. Milgram told the person to turn a knob which would deliver a series of shocks to the person in the chair; unbeknownst to the "shocker," the person in the chair wasn't connected to anything and was faking being shocked. This experiment was not to test on the person in the chair. Quite the opposite, in fact. This experiment was testing on the "shocker." The "shocker" would turn the knob to various levels of pain, ranging from a mild shock to death. Almost every time, the "shocker" turned the knob all the way to the deadly volt, all the while seeing the man shreiking in pain. Why? Because Milgram told them to. More info here.

What does that have to do with anything? Well, it was a form of virtual torture. Was the shocker really torturing the shock reciever? He wasn't feeling pain. He was in no harm. But because he acted his way into making the shocker think he was torturing the person, did it in a sense become torture? Just some food for thought.

 

[Taymond]

I don't really know how well the Milgram Experiment represents this issue. It's a wholly different situation, frankly. What makes "virtual torture" and general video-game conduct defensible is the fact that players understand that what they are doing isn't real. Knowledge that our actions do not really harm anyone allow us to lessen our normal moral reservations and enjoy a game for what it is--a game.

Milgram's experiment revolved around a person believing, albeit falsely, that what they were doing was genuinely harming another human being. They thought they were hurting people, not 1's and 0's. The parallel is.. lacking. Also, I think later recreations of Milgram's Experiment only reinforce the general belief here. If i remember correctly, their was a correlation between how close a person was, in a manner of speaking, to the "victim" and how soon they stopped the experiment. If the victim was only audible, from another room, the experiment tended to go long. If a subject could physically see the victim suffer, however, the experiments ended much sooner.

It just revolves around the level of empathy a person is able to give the victim. If they are removed from their victim, even slight apparent suffering could be overcome by authoritative urging, but the more the subject was allowed to care about the victim, the less the presence of an authority figure was able to force the experiment to continue. In a video game, we're absolutely and completely removed from the "victim." In fact, the victim isn't even perceived to be real. The victim isn't seen to have rights--it doesn't deserve anything, so "torture" is much more... generally acceptable.

 

[The Executive]

I don't really know how well the Milgram Experiment represents this issue. It's a wholly different situation, frankly. What makes "virtual torture" and general video-game conduct defensible is the fact that players understand that what they are doing isn't real. Knowledge that our actions do not really harm anyone allow us to lessen our normal moral reservations and enjoy a game for what it is--a game.

Milgram's experiment revolved around a person believing, albeit falsely, that what they were doing was genuinely harming another human being. They thought they were hurting people, not 1's and 0's. The parallel is.. lacking. Also, I think later recreations of Milgram's Experiment only reinforce the general belief here. If i remember correctly, their was a correlation between how close a person was, in a manner of speaking, to the "victim" and how soon they stopped the experiment. If the victim was only audible, from another room, the experiment tended to go long. If a subject could physically see the victim suffer, however, the experiments ended much sooner.

It just revolves around the level of empathy a person is able to give the victim. If they are removed from their victim, even slight apparent suffering could be overcome by authoritative urging, but the more the subject was allowed to care about the victim, the less the presence of an authority figure was able to force the experiment to continue. In a video game, we're absolutely and completely removed from the "victim." In fact, the victim isn't even perceived to be real. The victim isn't seen to have rights--it doesn't deserve anything, so "torture" is much more... generally acceptable.

That's a chilling thought, but it's true.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

I don't really know how well the Milgram Experiment represents this issue. It's a wholly different situation, frankly. What makes "virtual torture" and general video-game conduct defensible is the fact that players understand that what they are doing isn't real. Knowledge that our actions do not really harm anyone allow us to lessen our normal moral reservations and enjoy a game for what it is--a game.

Milgram's experiment revolved around a person believing, albeit falsely, that what they were doing was genuinely harming another human being. They thought they were hurting people, not 1's and 0's. The parallel is.. lacking. Also, I think later recreations of Milgram's Experiment only reinforce the general belief here. If i remember correctly, their was a correlation between how close a person was, in a manner of speaking, to the "victim" and how soon they stopped the experiment. If the victim was only audible, from another room, the experiment tended to go long. If a subject could physically see the victim suffer, however, the experiments ended much sooner.

It just revolves around the level of empathy a person is able to give the victim. If they are removed from their victim, even slight apparent suffering could be overcome by authoritative urging, but the more the subject was allowed to care about the victim, the less the presence of an authority figure was able to force the experiment to continue. In a video game, we're absolutely and completely removed from the "victim." In fact, the victim isn't even perceived to be real. The victim isn't seen to have rights--it doesn't deserve anything, so "torture" is much more... generally acceptable.

My bad. I was attempting to make a connection of whether or not it is torture if the subject isn't really feeling pain, but it may not have come across very well. I was kind of saying that, whether the subject feels pain or not, the person causing it sees it as torture.

 

[Firus]

I think that it's actually better to torture a virtual being in some cases. When you think about it long and hard, it's really kind of morbid. But it can relieve stress, and I think it could remove the need to do it to a real human being. Obviously, there will be some people who take that sort of thing to the extreme and do it on a real human being, but I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that they tortured a virtual being, I think that they were that way initially.

I'm sure most everyone here has at one point trapped a Sim someplace, killed them or killed their video game character in different ways. But most of the time, that's just boredom. That's the only time I do it. If you do it constantly, that's probably not a good thing.

In any case, it's a little disturbing to do it constantly and in realistic ways (a la GTA), but if you do it every so often and only as a result of boredom, I think it's healthy. The virtual beings are just pixels and you're clicking/pressing buttons to torture/kill them. Until the day the machines become self-aware and destroy us all, that's all it will be. It's a little disturbing sometimes, but not unethical.