I wasn’t thinking about multiplayer games, but rather single-player games with computer-controlled opponents.
In other words, deeper introspection shows that suffering and pleasure aren’t terminal values, but are grafted onto a deeper theory of legitimacy.
There are certainly arguments to be made for suffering and pleasure not being terminal values, but (even if we assumed that I was thinking about MP games) this argument doesn’t seem to show it. One could say that the rules about legitimacy were justified to the extent that they reduced suffering and increased pleasure, and that the average person got more pleasure overall from playing a competitive game than he would get from a situation where nobody agreed to play with him.
Are you not employing circular reasoning here ? Sure, shooting computer-controller opponents is ok because they don’t experience any suffering from being hit by a bullet; but that only holds true if we assume they are not conscious in the first place. If they are conscious to some extent -- let’s say, their Consciousness Index is 0.001, on the scale from 0 == “rock” and 1 == “human”—then we could reasonably say that they do experience suffering to some extent.
As I said, I don’t believe that the words “consciousness” has any useful meaning; but I am pretending that it does, for the purposes of this post.
Are you not employing circular reasoning here ? Sure, shooting computer-controller opponents is ok because they don’t experience any suffering from being hit by a bullet; but that only holds true if we assume they are not conscious in the first place.
Yeah. How is that circular reasoning? Seems straightforward to me: “computer-controlled opponents don’t suffer from being shot → shooting them is okay”.
If they are conscious to some extent—let’s say, their Consciousness Index is 0.001, on the scale from 0 == “rock” and 1 == “human”—then we could reasonably say that they do experience suffering to some extent.
If they are conscious to some extent, then we could reasonably say that they do experience something. Whether that something is suffering is another question. Given that “suffering” seems to be reasonably complex process that can be disabled by the right brain injury or drug, and computer NPCs aren’t anywhere near the level of possessing similar cognitive functionality, I would say that shooting them still doesn’t cause suffering even if they were conscious.
I wasn’t thinking about multiplayer games, but rather single-player games with computer-controlled opponents.
Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you meant by opponent—in which case I certainly agree with you. If the NPC had some kind of “consciousness,” such that if you hit him with your magic spell he really does experience being embroiled in a fireball, then playing Skyrim would be a lot more ethically dubious.
One could say that the rules about legitimacy were justified to the extent that they reduced suffering and increased pleasure
One could say any manner of things. But does that argument really track with your intuitions? I’m not saying that suffering and pleasure don’t enter the moral calculus at all, mind you. But my intuition is that the “suffering” of someone who doesn’t want to be shot in a multiplayer game of Doom simply doesn’t count, in much the same way that the “pleasure” that a rapist takes in his crime doesn’t count. I’m not talking about the social/legal rules, as implemented, for what is and isn’t legitimate—I’m talking about our innate moral sense of what is and isn’t legitimate.
I think this is what underlies a lot of the “trigger warning” debate—one side really wants to say “I don’t care how much suffering you claim to undergo, it’s irrelevant, you’re not being wronged in any way,” and the other side really wants to say “I have a free-floating right not to be offended, so any amount that I suffer by you breaking that right is too much” but neither side can make their case in those terms as both statements are considered too extreme, which is why you get this shadow-boxing.
But does that argument really track with your intuitions?
At one point I would have said “yes”, but at this point I’ve basically given up on trying to come up with verbal arguments that would track my intuitions, at least once we move away from clear-cut cases like “Skyrim NPCs suffering from my fireballs would be bad” and into messier ones like a multiplayer game.
(So why did I include the latter part of my comment in the first place? Out of habit, I guess. And because I know that there are some people—including my past self—who would have rejected your argument, but whose exact chain of reasoning I no longer feel like trying to duplicate.)
I wasn’t thinking about multiplayer games, but rather single-player games with computer-controlled opponents.
There are certainly arguments to be made for suffering and pleasure not being terminal values, but (even if we assumed that I was thinking about MP games) this argument doesn’t seem to show it. One could say that the rules about legitimacy were justified to the extent that they reduced suffering and increased pleasure, and that the average person got more pleasure overall from playing a competitive game than he would get from a situation where nobody agreed to play with him.
Are you not employing circular reasoning here ? Sure, shooting computer-controller opponents is ok because they don’t experience any suffering from being hit by a bullet; but that only holds true if we assume they are not conscious in the first place. If they are conscious to some extent -- let’s say, their Consciousness Index is 0.001, on the scale from 0 == “rock” and 1 == “human”—then we could reasonably say that they do experience suffering to some extent.
As I said, I don’t believe that the words “consciousness” has any useful meaning; but I am pretending that it does, for the purposes of this post.
Yeah. How is that circular reasoning? Seems straightforward to me: “computer-controlled opponents don’t suffer from being shot → shooting them is okay”.
If they are conscious to some extent, then we could reasonably say that they do experience something. Whether that something is suffering is another question. Given that “suffering” seems to be reasonably complex process that can be disabled by the right brain injury or drug, and computer NPCs aren’t anywhere near the level of possessing similar cognitive functionality, I would say that shooting them still doesn’t cause suffering even if they were conscious.
Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you meant by opponent—in which case I certainly agree with you. If the NPC had some kind of “consciousness,” such that if you hit him with your magic spell he really does experience being embroiled in a fireball, then playing Skyrim would be a lot more ethically dubious.
One could say any manner of things. But does that argument really track with your intuitions? I’m not saying that suffering and pleasure don’t enter the moral calculus at all, mind you. But my intuition is that the “suffering” of someone who doesn’t want to be shot in a multiplayer game of Doom simply doesn’t count, in much the same way that the “pleasure” that a rapist takes in his crime doesn’t count. I’m not talking about the social/legal rules, as implemented, for what is and isn’t legitimate—I’m talking about our innate moral sense of what is and isn’t legitimate.
I think this is what underlies a lot of the “trigger warning” debate—one side really wants to say “I don’t care how much suffering you claim to undergo, it’s irrelevant, you’re not being wronged in any way,” and the other side really wants to say “I have a free-floating right not to be offended, so any amount that I suffer by you breaking that right is too much” but neither side can make their case in those terms as both statements are considered too extreme, which is why you get this shadow-boxing.
At one point I would have said “yes”, but at this point I’ve basically given up on trying to come up with verbal arguments that would track my intuitions, at least once we move away from clear-cut cases like “Skyrim NPCs suffering from my fireballs would be bad” and into messier ones like a multiplayer game.
(So why did I include the latter part of my comment in the first place? Out of habit, I guess. And because I know that there are some people—including my past self—who would have rejected your argument, but whose exact chain of reasoning I no longer feel like trying to duplicate.)