Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Video Game Violence
Transcript of Video Game Violence
Video Game Violence
By: Jodie K, Rachel M, Jackie P, Simone V
Why is it a problem?
Cases of violence
Columbine High School: April 20th, 1999
History and Development
The first video games
The Video Game
Do video games really cause increased aggression, or are these statistics just a coincidence?
What is a video game?
A video game is a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or display.
American Psychological Association: 2005
California: October 7th, 2005
Virginia Tech: April 16th, 2010
Sandy Hook: February 18th, 2013
In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the United States contained violence.
Violent video games are blamed for violence against women, school shootings, and it increases bullying.
Not only can violent video games lead to this, but they promote...
killing animals and people
drugs and alcohol
acts against the law
Super Columbine Massacre RPG
Cannot show pictures due to inappropriate content
From the Perspective of...
3 day investigation
French University investigation
“Playing video games could be compared to smoking cigarettes. A single cigarette won’t cause lung cancer, but smoking over weeks or months or years greatly increases the risk. In the same way, repeated exposure to violent video games may have a cumulative effect on aggression.” -Dr. Bushman
1) The parents who do not want video games ban would be using the Utilitarian approach because they are looking at the end result of their children being happy, and distracted.
2) The parents who think video games cause violence and want them ban would be using the Utilitarian approach as well, but are thinking that the end result would lead to less aggression, and more time with their kids.
Gamers would not want the games to be ban and therefore are using the Utilitarian approach. They are not thinking of the families that were hurt potentially from game violence, but that they are benefited from this decision.
1) Does the decision respect the purpose for which the benefit/ thing/object/resource was created and promote the most virtuous outcome? (if yes, the action is morally correct, if not the action is morally wrong.) The answer to this question would be no, therefore, according to the Justice approach, the action is morally wrong. Video games were not meant to be violent, but meant to entertain with games like Pacman.
2) The people in our society who do not want video games banned are using the Utilitarian approach, and saying that if these people are happy, why fix what's not broken. They are benefiting a large group of people who do not want them banned either.
We all agree that because these statistics are really only a theory, banning video games is not the correct option. We think more money should be spent by the government in somehow running more tests to see if aggressive video games actually cause violence.
We also think that even though it is store policy to not sell Mature and Adult Only video games to people who are less than 17 years of age, it should be illegal making this policy more legitimate.
We use the Utilitarian approach because we're thinking about what is going to benefit the most people in the long run.
Currently, video game violence has been talked about, but no real action has been taken.
Problems with the "Gamers"
They are given rewards for killing people
Every time they die, in their gaming worlds they come back to life. Some people think they are immortal!
Media helping or hurting?
Sometimes the hype gets out of control! These issues could potentially be a smaller deal than the internet is making it out to be.
[ https://www.google.com/search ]https://www.google.com/search?
[ www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp ]www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp
What would the philosophers say?
He was Utilitarian so he would say that banning video games, or not banning video games would be okay. They both benefit a pretty equal number of people. He would also be thinking about the outcome, not the actions.
He would say to ban the video games because it lessens the virtue of the people playing them. In general justice he would say that ideally, only the bad people should be punished, and other people should continue to play who do not abuse the intentions of video games.
According to the Rights Approach, I think Locke would say to ban the games because it could potentially be affecting the peoples right to be injured.
We are not sure what Rousseau would say since everyone might not be benefited from each decision which is what the Common Good approach is all about.
Timeline of Devices