Monday 6 October, 2008
I played a couple more missions. One that I decided to ethically analyze was "Burning Desire". The C.R.A.S.H. team are waiting at the donut shop in Vinewood. Officer Tenpenny calls Carl over, and offers him a seat. CJ says he couldn't visit earlier because he was busy. Officer Pulaski thinks CJ is screwing with them, and Tenpenny makes it perfectly clear that they own him. He then goes onto explain that there's a gang-banging cop-killing thug like yourself holed up across town. Pulaski hands you the address. Your job is to make sure that he doesn't leave the neighbourhood alive. Tenpenny has hidden some molotovs in an alleyway in Downtown Los Santos you pick them up. You can use the cop car parked in front of the donut shop to get there. Once you have collected the molotovs, you go to the Vagos gang house and torch it. You kill the gang members standing in front of the house. Throw molotovs into the downstairs windows. More Vagos attack as you torch the house.
You soon discover that a girl is trapped inside, and she is choking because of the dense smoke. You go inside the Vagos Gang House and save the girl before her health bar runs out. Go into the kitchen and collect the fire extinguisher. Then go up the stairs and use the fire extinguisher to put out the flames separating you and the girl. The girl follows you wherever you go. The roof collapses, and the house is beginning to fall in. You extinguish any flames blocking the exits, and ensure that the girl gets out safely.
From the last entry I came to the conclusion that murder is wrong in all ethical views, so when he kills the gang members it is immoral. When Carl torches the house it is also unethical. Through utilitarianism, the satisfaction of the corrupt police officers does not out weigh the negative consequences of burning someone's property. Through Kantianism you can universalize the rule that destroying someones property is immoral. Through social contract society deems it wrong to commit arson. But what was interesting about this mission is that Carl does a rare moral deed. He saves a girl from being burned. Utilitarianism would say that saving the girls life would increase the happiness of the world. Through Kantianism, you can universalize the rule that it is moral to save someone when possoble. Through social contract there is nothing that society would say is wrong about saving someone's life.
This game has many forms of violence, racism, and rewards for committing crimes. It is unfortunate that Carl was thrown into this life but that still does not make his actions moral. Even still I was surprised to see he actually did one moral deed. Almost all the actions are immoral in the game but that does not mean it is a bad game. Apart from being very fun, the game shows you elements of society that are true, even though it might be a little over exaggerated. We can all learn by playing Grand Theft Auto that society does has its problems People realize that it is immoral but it is just a game.
Do you think that if the designers placed more of these "moral deeds" in with the anti-social deeds like murder there would have been some sort of balance? Would that have made the violence of the game less impact full? Also, do you think that when the player kills "Bad People" the player is suppose to feel less conflicted? It seems like in our media it is alright if the hero uses violence to get rid of evil people. You backed up your argument that its never right to kill a person even if they are criminals, very well.
Sunday 19 October, 2008 by mtisdale