 |
|
Nov 9th, 2018 at 00:41:16 - A Way Out (PS4) |
Today I played this game for two hours. As the game story progresses, I find that the same man frames both characters. So they escaped not just for a purpose, but for revenge, in a sense to prove their innocence. However, I still hold a negative attitude towards the question of the morality of intentional escape from prison. Because in the plot of the game, the main characters in the escape in order not to be arrested back to jail, they hurt the prison officers who came to hold back them, robbed the farmer's car and even killed people. So also if they want revenge and prove their innocence, they have committed more crimes on the way out. Besides, the problem can be analyzed with Kantianism. First, I make a moral rule: "A man can escape prison when he has a purpose or wants to prove his innocence." Then we universalize the rule. If all men could break out of prison for their purposes, the prison could not be trusted, for it could not hold the prisoner at all. By that, it leads to a logical contradiction. So, it is wrong to follow that rule, and the problem I made should be unethical.
read comments (2)  - add a comment  - read this GameLog  |
|
Nov 8th, 2018 at 00:36:54 - A Way Out (PS4) |
Today I played it for one hour. When I played the game, I found that the reason why the two protagonists escaped from the prison was to revenge on the same person. So what this means is that this escape is not just an escape from the prison, it's an escape for a specific purpose. So that raises the question: is a prison break with some particular goal moral? It should be unethical from my personal point of view. Anyway, there's a reason to go to jail. For example, various forms of crime and to a very serious extent to go to prison. That being the case, even if there is a specific purpose, does not justify a prison break. In addition, we can also use utilitarianism. In this case the stakeholder should have the protagonist, the protagonist's family, and others in society. There is a positive outcome here for both the protagonist and his family. However, the rest of the community should not want an inmate to escape from prison. So it's negative overall. So the outcome of this question is also immoral in terms of utilitarianism.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Nov 6th, 2018 at 23:47:56 - A Way Out (PS4) |
Today I have played A Way Out for one hour. This game is a two-player cooperative game. Players need to control two different characters to get out of prison. The first thing I've heard about this game so far is that it strikes me as a homage to The Shawshank Redemption. Both the plot and the setting are very much like those shown in the movie. However, the Escape method designed in the game is more like the Escape Plan. Maybe it's because I played for a short time, and now the two main characters have not escaped from prison. So I haven't found any questions about morality so far. Perhaps by far, the most morally controversial issue is whether it is ethically acceptable for the warden to do excessive punishment prisoners when they first enter the prison. In my opinion, this act is immoral. The warden's excessive punishment of the prisoners was determined in her mind. It's like he's taking himself as the god of this prison. This behavior is too much into subjective factors and personal emotions. Of course, this game does not have a full expansion of this problem, so I can not conduct a more detailed analysis of examples.
add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
Sep 28th, 2018 at 00:26:09 - Nier: Automata (PS4) |
Today I spent two hours playing this game. In this game, everything looks for the value and meaning of its existence. While collecting human data, artificial people are influenced by these data and gradually find the meaning of their existence. They were created to kill for their creator, and when these artificial humans evolved, they killed their master, and the creator died. In this way, their existence is meaningless, so individuals who are separated from the network of mechanical life began to interpret their presence in different ways. Besides, as for the question of whether to continue using emotional artificial people as tools, I think it can be explained by utilitarianism. Firstly, there should be several stakeholders: builders, merchant, human beings who use the artificial people to complete something they want. For the builder, if someone uses the artificial person that he or she built, they will have the positive outcome. For merchants, if there are people who are willing to buy the artificial people they sell, they will have the positive outcome. Moreover, for humans who use artificial people as tools, they also have a positive outcome because artificial people help them solve things they cannot do. Also, the number of humans using them as tools should be the largest. When we multiply all the outputs, the results should be positive. According to this result of using utilitarianism, the question which I made should be moral.
read comments (1) - add a comment - read this GameLog |
|
|
 |
| pring99's GameLogs |
|
pring99 has been with GameLog for 5 years, 7 months, and 28 days |
view feed xml
|
| Entries written to date: 9 |
|
