Violent computer games, empathy, and cosmopolitanism Mark Coeckelbergh Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands E-mail: m.coeckelbergh@utwente.nl Abstract. Many philosophical and public discussions of the ethical aspects of violent computer games typically centre on the relation between playing violent videogames and its supposed direct consequences on violent behaviour. But such an approach rests on a controversial empirical claim, is often one-sided in the range of moral theories used, and remains on a general level with its focus on content alone. In response to these problems, I pick up Matt McCormick’s thesis that potential harm from playing computer games is best construed as harm to one’s character, and propose to redirect our attention to the question how violent computer games influence the moral character of players. Inspired by the work of Martha Nussbaum, I sketch a positive account of how computer games can stimulate an empathetic and cosmopolitan moral development. Moreover, rather than making a general argument applicable to a wide spectrum of media, my concern is with specific features of violent computer games that make them especially morally problematic in terms of empathy and cosmopolitanism, features that have to do with the connections between content and medium, and between virtuality and reality. I also discuss some remaining problems. In this way I hope contribute to a less polarised discussion about computer games that does justice to the complexity of their moral dimension, and to offer an account that is helpful to designers, parents, and other stakeholders. Key words: computer games, cosmopolitanism, empathy, Nussbaum, violence Introduction Many computer games involve virtual violence, but some have caused public moral outrage and can be called violent: those in which the player repeatedly engages in violent actions, and in which such violence is glorified. A famous example is Grand Theft Auto (GTA). Since the player takes on the role of a crimi- nal, who can only make progression in the game by doing things such as hijacking, bank robbery, and killing innocent by-standers, the game is taken to glorify crime. But does its highly violent character render the game immoral? The same question can be asked about another highly controversial computer game: Manhunt. The player takes on the role of someone who is forced to participate in snuff films by performing cruel ‘executions’ using a variety of weapons. The game has been banned in several countries. Defenders of such games argue that games are just games, and that gamers are well able to make a difference between the virtual and the real. But this claim is controversial. Empirical research suggests that aggression and violence may be the effect of gaming. In ‘Video Game Violence and Public Policy’ 1 David Walsh summarises some research results. Violent computer games seem not only to provoke violent thoughts and feelings, but aggressive anti- social behaviour as well. Is this true? Philosophical and public discussions of the ethical aspects of violent computer games typically centre on the relation between playing violent videogames and its supposed direct consequences for violent behav- iour. Roughly speaking, claims made are of the type ‘game X has harmful consequences Y’, and then consequentialist or deontological arguments are combined with empirical research in support of the claim. Such arguments are linked to the common sense notion that what happens in one domain spills over in another domain. The metaphor of contami- An earlier version of this paper was presented at the ACLA 2006 conference in Princeton, 25 March 2006. 1 D. Walsh. Video Game Violence and Public Policy. Retrieved from http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/ papers/walsh.html. The University of Chicago Cultural Pol- icy Centre, 2001. Ethics and Information Technology (2007) 9:219–231 Ó Springer 2007 DOI 10.1007/s10676-007-9145-3