Morality, in a video game?

As mentioned in my personal blog, I have completed Grand Theft Auto IV. It came to me through playing the game that morality and morals do play some part in the game.

Of course a game of its nature, you cannot avoid stealing cars, committing drug related crimes, killing people. But, you do get choices who dies and if they die in the game. (I can think of about 4 or 5 instances where this happens)

Crucially, the big moral issues in the game come at the end. You reach your characters enemy from the past, who seemingly massacred your friends in your village for drug money. Do you kill him or let him live? He does, afterall want you to end him and he does egg you on. This part of the game has no bearing on the ending, but it is interesting and other than giving you a gamers choice to explore what happens in either case, I'd like to think it makes you reflect on what decision to make. The story of the game, as it unfolds leads up to this. But is killing him just?

The other decision making issue is the finale of the game, whether you work with your arch-nemesis from earlier on in the game for the sake of money (despite the fact he has tortured your cousin and caused many problems for you), or you choose to go ahead and kill him. The game either way, does not end their either, but you'll have to play to find out.

I went with my gamers instinct and chose to kill him, but thinking back on the decision, whats easier on the conscience? Remembering, 'forgiving' traumatic events caused by an evil man for the sake of money, or seeking justice and revenge? There is no way out of choosing either one for the altruistic person, so you have to go one way or the other.

The game's morality issues are not complete (thanks to a reader for highlighting this) without the complexities of sexuality and homosexuality. Earlier in the game, you 'pretend' to be gay to kill a gay man because he has annoyed at friend (not for being gay, though). I thought the game was a bit unfair on the gays, but then later on, you befriend a gay man and help him fight off a homophobe (you kill him too). So its even then. It does make you think.

Afterall it is a video game, but if it were real life, what would you do, go against principles for money or seek revenge? I'm not even sure what I would do, but I found it fascinating that a video game like Grand Theft Auto, despite all the criticism it has received in the past can throw up moral issues. Maybe most gamers don't think about the morality involved.

Perhaps they should.

Abortion - in the news

As with my blog the other day, I questioned when does human life begin.

This one, brings to light the legality of abortion. In the UK, it is allowed, but in the US it is a highly more regarded social issue.

1973 Roe v Wade made abortions legal, and a case following Doe v Bolton means that abortions must taken in for physical, emotional and pyschological reasons.

Obama though, in the run up to the US election, says 'Mental Distress can't justify late abortions.'

As Time shows, this is a hot Catholic issue.

Personally, I think it Obama has it right, though the baby's health and wellbeing should be taken into account.

Don't they have rights too? They are, after I argued in my last blog, human as well.

When is a human, human?

A little blog just deviating from my 'Relusion' and Existence of God series at the moment to bring up a question and answer what I think must be undeniably the case. It has been rattling me all day, because sadly there has been another miscarraige in the family just when it all looked like it was good to go and we started to get excited by the prospect of another.

To my question at hand then:

When is a human, human?

Emotion considerations aside, given examples like above, women having to give birth to stillborn or fetuses makes it all painstaking clear to philosophical arguments against the religious concensus that abortion and use of embroyonic stem cells that a baby has human value whilst in the womb, from conception. That is clear.

However, perhaps in the case of abortion, exceptions can be made for the obvious (life threatening to the mother) - but also if it is certain the baby cannot 'feel' pain, or does not experience anything, then maybe it can be justified.

This though, is a grey area that I won't go into today, but something to think about.

---

Reading Fr Peter's blog, it again made me think about Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion".

Stricly, he doesn't say God does not exist, but that it is very very, very unlikely.

This is in mind then with Dawkins being atheist, perhaps this explains why atheists pray and even believe in God? ... or as Dawkins likes to put it "believe in belief".

I've never heard anything so ridiculous from an educated man. "believe in belief" - what does that mean? Does he mean "believer"? It just makes no sense to me.

(You can read Fr Peter's blog here.)

'Relusion' and the Existence of God: I - Dawkins

For a long time since my A-Level studies, having coming to hear of Dawkins' argument in 'The Selfish Gene', I became interested in reading in book, "The God Delusion" and interested in learning more about the complex question that has been answered (or attempted to answer) by philosophers for centuries. In more recent times, with my mother studying at the Maryvale Institute and my father working there, I came to learn of Father Thomas Crean's book, a Catholic response to Dawkins, and I am interested more so now in analysing these books and taking some view from science and religious perspectives on the existence of God.

This is what I will look at over the next 2-3 blogs in this section, looking at Dawkins, Crean and my own conclusions. It will be very brief and concise, and in no means is it a critical dissection of religion, or science to the question, but my own thoughts on a few of the views that really do stand out.

From the title of these series of blogs, I will first demonstrate by what is meant by 'Relusion'. As Dawkins says, it is a delusion, but when one believes in religion, it is a delusion (I'm not quite sure how you can call religion a delusion), and thus it is a 'Relusion'. However he did choose to omit using Relusion as the title of his book.

Parts of his argument that really stood out for me from a criticism point is three fold:

1) There is no such thing as a Muslim/Christian/Jew etc. child. It is a child of Muslim parents.
2) His book is a dissection of religion and has converted many to atheism.
3) Science is based on fact. Religions (notably Christianity) has changed its viewpoint on certain issues (eg. Pope Benedict XVI abolished long accepted 'limbo') and the contradictions in doctrine and standpoint shows it cannot be true.

In response, I have to say that:

1) Perhaps it is perfectly valid for Dawkins to say that the child lacks the intelligence and reasoning required to call themselves under the name of a religion. Indeed, Louis Theroux's television documentary on America's most hated family shows that a child activist involved with the family in the Baptist church showed that the child cannot defend why "fags" are wrong.

But, in a way, isn't it tantamunt to saying, a dog born in a barn does not make it a horse? Or in other words, a child to Pakistani-born parents born in England does not make that child English?

In any case, the Louis Theroux example I explained as a atheist stance against religion is a straw man argument. The point is, a child can define themselves Catholic, or Christian, or Orthodox Jew, or Jewish. It doesn't water down the integrity of religion if people who follow them don't follow the doctrines blindly. Isn't that after all what we were born for? To think independently. Whether we follow a religion or not, not following a religion would really not make any difference. We should not shudder at the idea of a child being called a "Muslim child", but rather applaud. Religious reasoning aside, it is still socialising children in morals and they are still being brought up to rationalise what behaviour is wrong.

2) Dawkins book as a dissection of religion, is simply not true. First, it is important to recognise that unlike Crean's book, Dawkins is written for a mainstream audience. As a result, where Dawkins has quoted references, he does fail to in other places of importance where he uses polls, statistical data. It is hard then, from this point to take the book as complete fact. Fact again, brings me to my most important point against Dawkins.

3) It is an assertion made by Dawkins that Science is always right. This again, is not true. It does not take a genius to acknowledge science once had the consensus that the sun revolved around the Earth. Even Dawkins recognises this and I can't help but see a contradiction in him saying science is in effect, a search for truth, but this is something I don't think can be truly understood by human civilisation. I forget the name of the sociologist (Comte comes to mind, but if anyone can enlighten me, please do) who said that science is simply a paradigm, a consensus that eventually will be replaced and will keep being replaced throughout the test of time. Fact is simply something that is beyond our understanding, and science or religion considered it does take a kind of 'leap' of faith either way to accept a given issue (take Global Warming as an example) as fact. 'Smoking can cause lung cancer' is seen on cigarette packets, and this is what science does, cause and effect relationships. But you cannot derive fact from what is commonly held belief. Fact from this view is something subjective and it is out human independence in our morals, belief that will always remain. It is just simply impossible that we can universalise an argument even if the evidence is overwhelming, there will always be some sort of resistance. Science has and is not perfect, and I'm not saying religion is either. I will deal with Crean's Catholic response in my next blog.

Criticism aside, Dawkins brings some very persuasive arguments to the table, concerning psychology, the history of religious scripture and its validity among others that I really do encourage you to read it. His book however does not tear religion into shreds, and he does claim an aura of superiority because his Beoing 747 argument (that it is very, very very unlikely God exists) goes mainly unanswered by theologians. Perhaps it is because he is a biologist first, a theologian and philosopher last. Relevant his points may be, the facts are it does not destroy Religion as a source of people's direction in life.

In my next blog, I will discuss Crean, before moving on to my own thoughts. I just have one final observation: Religion and Science, can be seen as Dawkins says, at odds with one other. But if science is the predominantly accepted understanding of human life and the universe, then to me I wonder why at all Dawkins is bothered or feels threatened by religion.

Perhaps he is wrong? ....