Samuel Ulbricht

Die Frage nach der Ethik in Computerspielen fragt im Kern danach, wie Computerspiele moralische Fragen aushandeln können. Ausgangspunkt ist die folgende Beobachtung: Situationen und Tätigkeiten, die in Wirklichkeit¹ moralisch brisant wären, sind seit jeher ein beliebter Gegenstand von Computerspielen. Seien es spielerische Umsetzungen von Kriegssituationen wie in den Reihen Call of Duty oder Metal Gear Solid, seien es heftige körperliche Auseinandersetzungen wie in Tekken oder auch in Super Smash Bros., seien es bleihaltige Abenteuer wie in Uncharted oder Tomb Raider – in zahlreichen Fällen wie diesen führen wir beim Spielen Handlungen aus, die wir, wenn wir sie in Wirklichkeit durchführten, für...

The Gamer’s Dilemma consists of three intuitively plausible but conflicting assertions: (i) Virtual murder is morally permissible. (ii) Virtual child molestation is morally forbidden. (iii) There is no relevant moral difference between virtual murder and virtual child molestation in computer games. Numerous attempts to resolve (or dissolve) the Gamer’s Dilemma line the field of computer game ethics. Mostly, the phenomenon is approached using expressivist argumentation: Reprehensible virtual actions express something immoral in their performance but are not immoral by themselves. Consequentialists, on the other hand, claim that the immorality of virtual actions arises from their harmful consequences. I argue that both approaches have serious difficulties meeting the moral challenge posed by the Gamer’s Dilemma. They tend to confuse the morality of in-game actions either with the morality of their real-world counterparts or with the morality of games as objects. Following this critical analysis, I will develop a Kantian argument and defend it against two objections. So far, deontological responses to the Gamer’s Dilemma have been sought in vain. Yet, with Kant, its moral challenge can be met by looking at the gamer’s reasons. From this perspective, the Gamer’s Dilemma is based on a false assumption: the moral status of gaming acts does not derive from a normative equation with their real-world counterparts but only from their justifications.

Despite the increasing number of gamers worldwide, the moral classification of computer gaming marks an as yet unsolved riddle of philosophical ethics. In view of the explosive nature of the topic in everyday life (as seen in various debates about rampages), it is obvious that a differentiated professional clarification of the phenomenon is needed: Can playing computer games be immoral? To answer this question, the author first discusses what we do at all when we play computer games: What kind of action are we talking about? The second step is a moral classification that reveals whether (and if so, why) some cases of computer gaming are morally problematic. The considerations made here provide a fundamental insight into the normative dimension of computer gaming. This book is a translation of the original German 1st edition Ethik des Computerspielens by Samuel Ulbricht, published by J.B. Metzler, an imprint of Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature in 2020. The translation was done with the help of artificial intelligence (machine translation by the service DeepL). A subsequent human revision was done primarily in terms of content with minor additions, so that the book will read stylistically differently from a conventional translation. Springer Nature works continuously to further the development of tools for the production of books and on the related technologies to support the authors.

Trotz der steigenden Zahl an Computerspielern weltweit markiert die moralische Einordnung von Computerspielhandlungen ein bislang ungelöstes Rätsel der philosophischen Ethik. Angesichts der Brisanz der Thematik im Alltag (zu sehen an der ‚Killerspiel-Debatte‘) ist augenfällig, dass es einer differenzierten fachlichen Klärung des Phänomens bedarf: Kann das Spielen von Computerspielen unmoralisch sein? Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage erörtert der Autor zunächst, was wir überhaupt tun, wenn wir Computerspiele spielen: Über welche Art von Handlung sprechen wir? Im zweiten Schritt erfolgt eine moralische Einordnung, die erschließt, ob (und wenn ja, warum) manche Computerspielhandlungen moralisch problematisch sind. Die hier angestellten Überlegungen gewähren einen grundlegenden Einblick in die normative Dimension des Computerspielens.