In first approaching this assignment, I had the idea of shedding light onto the issue of conforming to labels and social conventions as seen in the documentary The Mask You Live In discussed in class. However, I kept coming back to a philosophical debate that I feel is even more ignored by modern media: the idea of utilitarianism and its role in suggesting moral relativity. I initially was afraid to focus my game on a philosophical debate as it would make my message much more broad and open to interpretation. However, as I proceeded to create ethical dilemmas, I realized that challenging people's ethical code and guiding them towards greater self-reflection is one way of helping to promote social change and widening viewpoints to social issues. While we can raise awareness of certain issues, it is still up to the individual to act upon said issues and apply their moral conscience.
Upon researching the social effects of moral relativism, I realized that almost no objective studies have been conducted, which makes sense given that any attempt to measure "positive" or "negative" outcomes when it comes to moral conscious is very biased and can be easily criticized in a philosophical debate. Much like our class discussion, the subject of belief ends in a paradox, and this can frustrate and confuse many people in society; especially when the only see issues from a utilitarian perspective. The closest I came in terms of statistics was an article which stated that atheists were almost 50% more likely to use drugs, alcohol, not marry, and other (from one perspective) counterproductive behaviors than those that follow religious beliefs. With that, I decided that statistics was not going to have the punch necessary to make my counterpoint, so I looked at philosophical arguments.
My research led me to two sources, one an article outlining utilitarian moral dilemmas and the other to an analysis of The Brothers Karamazov, an influential novel that deals with belief versus relativism. I decided the best way to establish my message in a way that was not so heavy handed was to have the player be confronted by a "devil's advocate" and put through moral dilemmas. In seeing the brutality of such frameworks and eliciting an emotional response, I wanted to have the player question the worth of utilitarian thinking much like the article. While the article established that moral relativism does foster empathy and tolerance, it is largely destructive in that The debate on freedom and relativism in addition to the paradox of Christ's sacrifice comes from the article for The Brothers Karamazov. Since we were dealing with a devil's advocate, I thought it would be potent to have him mix up some church doctrine in order to confuse the player, much like The Brothers Karamazov does for the reader. In the end, however; the book establishes that moral relativism takes freedom away from individuals by removing the opposition necessary to build character, or in LDS terms, to have "opposition in all things." This idea stands as the final climax to the player's journey and makes what I was trying to say a little more clear.
As we go out and try to change the world, I think it is critical to understand the differences between empathy and moral relativism. There are times when we have to stand for something, and the media is largely ignoring the importance of moral self-discovery. I may be biased due to my upbringing, but I feel that social change can be further facilitated when people take the time to find truth in the world and act upon it. It sounds super idealistic, but if we all take more time to search for truth and understanding, then we will be better citizens for it. Then we will see the world differently and hopefully, be more incentivized to understand and change it.
Play the Game
http://philome.la/JakeJaketnelson/the-ultimate-good
Sources
https://www.jashow.org/articles/worldview/moral-relativism/the-fatal-flaws-of-moral-relativism/
No comments:
Post a Comment