- Image by Jamiecat * via Flickr
For those who are not familiar with video games, Dogmeat is an animal character in Fallout III. He is, of course, based on the character of the same name from the earlier game. This character is, of course, based on Mad Max’s dog. If none of this makes sense to you, suffice it to say that he is a dog in a violent video game.
Back when I was playing Fallout III, I ran across Dogmeat and “rescued” him (he helped out by killing few bad people), thus making him a companion. This gave me the option of bringing him with me into various dangerous situations, abandoning him, or leaving him in the relatively safety of my modest hut in a post-apocalyptic town. Like most gamers, I usually shamelessly exploit NPCs (non player characters-those controlled by the computer) and allow them to soak up damage for me. However, I elected to leave Dogmeat at home, safe from the virtual dangers of the radioactive wasteland. Being a philosopher, I wondered a bit about this choice and have been thinking about how this relates to ethics on and off since then.
The main point raised by this, at least as I see it, is whether or not we can have moral obligations to such virtual beings. Or, to put it another way, is it possible for there to be virtually virtuous acts regarding such virtual entities or not? Interestingly enough, I found that perhaps the best philosophical fit for the situation could be found in Immanuel Kant.
In his ethical theory Kant makes it quite clear that animals are means rather than ends. Rational beings, in contrast, are ends. For Kant, this distinction rests on the fact that rational beings can (as he sees it) chose to follow the moral law. Animals, lacking reason, cannot do this. Since animals are means and not ends, Kant claims that we have no direct duties to animals. They are classified in with the other “objects of our inclinations” that derive value from the value we give them.
Interestingly enough, Kant argues that we should treat animals well. However, he does so while also trying to avoid ascribing animals themselves any moral status. Here is how he does it (or tries to do so).
While Kant is not willing to accept that we have any direct duties to animals, he “smuggles” in duties to them indirectly. As he puts it, our duties towards animals are indirect duties towards humans. To make his case for this, he employs an argument from analogy: if a human doing X would obligate us to that human, then an animal doing X would also create an analogous moral obligation. For example, a human who has long and faithfully served another person should not simply be abandoned or put to death when he has grown old. Likewise, a dog who has served faithfully and well should not be cast aside in his old age.
While this would seem to create an obligation to the dog, Kant uses a little philosophical sleight of hand here. The dog cannot judge (that is, the dog is not rational) so, as Kant sees it, the dog cannot be wronged. So, then, why would it be wrong to shoot the dog?
Kant’s answer seems to be rather consequentialist in character: he argues that if a person acts in inhumane ways towards animals (shooting the dog, for example) then his humanity will likely be damaged. Since, as Kant sees it, humans do have a duty to show humanity to other humans, shooting the dog would be wrong. This would not be because the dog was wronged but because humanity would be wronged by the shooter damaging his humanity through such a cruel act.
Interestingly enough, Kant discusses how people develop cruelty-they often begin with animals and then work up to harming human beings. As I point out to my students, Kant seems to have anticipated the psychological devolution of serial killers.
Kant goes beyond merely enjoining us to not be cruel to animals and encourages us to be kind to them. He even praises Leibniz for being rather gentle with a worm he found. Of course, he encourages this because those who are kind to animals will develop more humane feelings towards humans. So, roughly put, animals are essentially practice for us: how we treat them is training for how we will treat human beings.
In the case of virtual beings, like Dogmeat, they are clearly and obviously lacking in any meaningful moral status of their own. They do not feel or think. They have no independent existence-they are just code in games. As such, they lack all the qualities that might give them a moral status of their own.
Oddly enough, these virtual beings would seem to be on par with animals, at least as Kant sees them. After all, real animals are mere objects and have no moral status of their own. The same is true of virtual beings.
Of course, the same is also true of rocks and dirt. Yet Kant would never argue that we should treat rocks well. Perhaps this would also apply to virtual beings such as Dogmeat. That is, perhaps it makes no sense to talk about good or bad relative to such virtual beings. Thus, the issue is whether virtual being are more like animals or rocks.
However, I think a case can be made for treating virtual beings well. If Kant’s argument has some merit, then the key concern about how non-rational beings are treated is how such treatment affects the behavior of the person engaging in said behavior. So, for example, if being cruel to a real dog could damage a person’s humanity, then he should (as Kant sees it) not be cruel to the dog. This should also extend to virtual beings. For example, if being cruel to a virtual dog would damage a person’s humanity, then he should not act in that way. If being kind to the virtual dog (in this case, saving Dogmeat) would make a person more inclined to be kind to other rational beings, then the person should be kind.
Interestingly enough (or boringly enough), this sort of argument is often employed to argue against people playing violent video games. The gist of such arguments is that they can condition people to behave badly in real life or at least de-sensitize people. What Kant’s argument adds to this is that it would seem to grant virtual beings the same sort of indirect moral duties that he claims we owe to animals. If Kant is right (and I am right in bending his theory) then I did have an indirect duty to save Dogmeat.
When I saved Dogmeat, it was more of a virtue ethic notion, ie the character I played believed in “strength, honour and courage” he “felt” that saving the dog as the right thing to do.
To push this a little further though, later on as the game got tougher I would safely place the dog out of harms reach and come back for him later – thus demonstrating a compassionate concern for its welfare. Indeed, sometimes when the dog died I would reload the PS3 again, Dog meat as it were became an companion and friend throughout the roaming around the wasteland.
Further points.
The next game of this is set in Las Vegas and its going to bring back the reputation system from the older games. Essentially each faction has its own code and set of virtues as you will, conforming or conflicting with these norms will affect your relationship with these groups in various ways.
Well there’s another post for you to do.
I tend to agree that the way we treat animals often affects how we treat people, though I’m not sure we should expect such a direct connection, as we seem to be fairly flexible in how we adapt the rules. A meaningful comparison might be found in the difference between pets and livestock, as those are animals that are treated very differently within the same culture. Specifically, we pursue emotional bonding with pets, but we avoid it with livestock (generally speaking). And yet, ethical standards for the treatment of both are subject to debate (and have been throughout history, I suspect).
I’m also of the sort that would treat a virtual dog well. But, being of electrons and silicon, the symbolic importance seems to place the virtual dog into the realm of idols and fetishes. Perhaps the level of ethics that apply to a virtual dog would be most analogous to the level of ethics that should be applied to symbolic cultural artifacts.
Well, I haven’t exactly followed this logic through, but it has a nice feel to it. Anyway, I look forward to someday meeting this Dogmeat and perhaps enjoy a bit of emotional bonding.
Did Kant ever mention rocks, or more importantly, homes and cars?
If a car protects us during a crash, through airbags or a roll cage, does that mean we have a moral obligation towards it? In taking care of our homes are we just expressing how we should take care of someone who keeps us warm and gives us shelter?
This seems to fit some of Kant’s moral message and it would be interesting to know if he actually had any thoughts along those lines.
(Note: I find none of this absurd, plenty of people revere buildings etc.)
Cars don’t protect you during a crash. They are objects. They don’t think, rationalize, or act. It was the engineers who designed the safety systems that one would be obliged to thank. Same for buildings.
“The main point raised by this, at least as I see it, is whether or not we can have moral obligations to such virtual beings.”
I don’t see how we can possibly. But we do have moral obligations to ourselves, not to indulge in behaviour which might have the effect of making us more callous in our dealings with real creatures.
I haven’t got practice with video games, but I guess that in the context of a video game Dogmeat and other virtual beings do move and exist as characters in stories, not as real beings, human or canine. So, how to treat such beings would really have to do with what kind of story you’re spinning, who you are in the story, what you project onto your character, etc. We’re in the realm of imagination and even, perhaps I’m stretching things a bit, art. In this regard, creating terribly dangerous situations or things of this kind in a video game might, to stay with Kant, be an acceptable candidate for some sort of Kantian sublime?
Along the lines of M. Antonietta’s comment…How is your obligation to Dogmeat’s life any different than Tom Stoppard’s obligation to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s reputations?
I think this type of thinking has merit, especially in this case, as animals are more than just objects, and we’ve got a lot in common with them. But virtual beings, at least in this moth, have absolutely no conscience or anything like feelings. But because we do perceive them as something close to being alive – I mean, you described Dogmeat as a dog, not as a pile of 0 and 1, doing good to them is, in my opinion, “good to our humanity”. But I’m not sure that harming them is always damaging for us, but there are of many cases when it does. But I think people don’t become aggressive by playing extremely violent games, but play extremely violent games because of other -possibly psychological- problems. Of course, this isn’t always true as well, e.g. it often happens that after a bad day you just have to smash some virtual beings (but I think there is a huge leap to smashing real beings).
Michael,
I wonder if most people save Dogmeat? He seems like a popular fellow.
TesserId,
Interesting point about cultural artifacts. Perhaps Kant’s argument could also be used to protect them as well.
Oakdale,
But why not? What would deny such beings these obligations?
Ernobius,
I would agree that we can “harm” virtual creatures without harming ourselves. For example, in playing Fallout or other such games, the players kill a lot of virtual things. But, these need not have a moral impact on their character. I argue this point in an essay I did on the difference between Halo and Grand Theft Auto. The gist is that it is not the violence that serves as the basis for corruption, but the reason for the violence.
Can that essay be found somewhere online? I’d like to read it if possible.
Can that essay be found somewhere online? I’d like to read it if possible.
Sorry for the double, I mistyped my e-mail address, and it’s hard to get e-mail updates that way…
Interesting stuff.
I feel towards my pixel friends, I know that. I know it to be irrational, i a sense that I will not gain any use, or it has no physical effect on me outside of what I think, to save or to be kind or the help pixel characters. In that same sense it makes no difference if I play a game or not, merely for a story or such. Or watching a movie makes no difference as the people dont really exist.
However, it does have an effect on me if I treat the pixel men, women, and animals alike, wrongly, and I use the same judgement I use in real life in my pixel adventures.
The effect is in my mind, it makes me sad, it goes against my nature to treat anything wrongly (defining wrong or just is another matter, I’m trying to keep this simple.), even if no one would ever know what I did. It is the same thing as treating a pixel character wrongly, as what is life but a dream, I’m sure you get my meaning.
I wont cry at night over a pixel I wiped out on Paintshop Pro, as I would if I was to wipe out a human from existance. Alas, I myself give meaning to things, wher meaninng would not exist. And that is what I find to be a good beauty in being human!
Without humans, what would be here? No beauty, nothing, as there would be no one apprechiating it, even though a human would find the landscapes of ancient earth stunningly beautiful. But also to make an assumption that all humans find landscapes beautiful is false.
And here is my ?point?.. :p
All people are built differently, there is no one way or one truth in the human race, no one moral law to have all unite. Counter arguments could be child molestation, if well explained to all humans, everyone would understand why it is not “right”, or jsut, and why you should feel bad if you commit these acts. But I can honestly say, I have met people who are rational in a sense, who hold their very own personal ideology that child molestation is just a thing, and is not fundementally wrong. People who do it for example, justify it to themselves in some way. How they do it is beyond me, but it can be done without belief or religion or anything like that. Maybe simply, because a person who is strong, is justified to take what he/she wants, and someone is justified to try and stop them, but not moralize them. In that way there would be no moral laws.
My emotions are the ones stopping me from killing innocent pixel dogs. I might do it for laughs if I feel funny, but never in real life would I harm an animal. That is just me. SOme people love dolls like their real, like my girlfriend started crying (at the age of 22), when I told her her little teddy bear didnt love her and the teddy loved me
I know, Im evil, but I never did it again 
You are born as a human, after an evolutionary chain, and you are built with empathy, which helps the society grow, you can sometimes feel what another feels, wich is moer than just understanding, it is knowing how the other feels and feeling it. And it is truly possible to expand this feeling towards even rocks. It might be illogical, but it’s human.
Humans arent tuned for perfection, humans are tuned for survival, and now that survival isn’t a factor anymore, illogical emotions are allowed to exist. If you were to think long enough about the reality of you caring for a pixel dog, you could deny these emptions their right by going through them, and they would dissapear, or you can choose to continue harvesting these emotions and see where that takes you. There is no right or wrong in this, there is just a choise. A choise to ignore logicality and keep emotions gone wild, or think about it, feel it, and let it go due to you wanting to be logical.
Words are just things to explain what is, and there is no more meaning in a word, than there is meaning in a chinese newscast to a person who cant understand chinese.
Emotions are for reasons. The reason for empathy is to help the survival of a group. Survival of a group exceeds the chances of a survival of a single entity, thus it has proven to be useful. People without empathy have died out over people who own it and take care of each other.
I have days where I get tired of tv, movies, and video games, as I know they are not real. Some days I also lose all touch with the world due to it not being too logical, and I know that it will all vanish someday.
But I can choose to harness these emotions, or I can choose to move on dispite. And I choose to love my girlfriend who loves her teddybear, and I choose not to love her teddy bear, and I choose to respect her love for that teddy bear. There is no right, no wrong here, things just are.
If it was a fire, and the only thing keeping us from survival would be her need and want to save that teddybear, I would tell her to listen up (I wouldnt have time, but you get my point), and tell her what is real, and what is not, and as I would be saying that, a fireman might shout at me saying, you’ll die anyways, no point in trying to survive now, life is jsut a dream and it will be over for you in less than a 100 years max!
It is all what feelings we choose to harness, and hold dear to us. Firemen either want a job, or erally think they are doing a great job saving lives. Doctors are either curious about biology and anatomy, or they really want to save lives and feel emotional towards their work.
One can’t choose everything, every emotion, but one can get over emotions if one lets them go for a greater cause.
Wow, I seem to not be able to make a short reply to anything these days.. I hope this was as interesting as the article, and at least a few people understood what I meant, because that would make me happy in the knowledge that I’m not wrong, and that means somehting to me, because I love truth and fact, as I have foudnd nothing more important on this planet than that. And one day that will be taken from me by death, but I choose to respect it and live my life, as I had no coise in being born, so I might as well allow a little fear of death and carry on, with good thoughts that make me happy. I can just be greatful childmolesting or torture doesnt make me happy.
How did Kant arrive at his assessment of animal morality? Obviously, Kant was a brilliant mind, but I find this conclusion that animals lack morality to be quite presumptuous. First of all, human morality is still a hotly debated question, so how could we begin to pigeonhole non-humans into easy pockets? Dogs, especially (though I’m not ruling out other animals with high cognitive abilities), exhibit many of the same social and ethical skills that humans do. They inevitably come to similar conclusions on cooperative existence, including loyalty and dominance hierarchies. If Kant were alive today, I would directly challenge his assumption on animal morality, partially on objective observation of animal behavior. In the most extreme cases, dogs have been known frequently to choose to risk their wellbeing to aid their masters. Obviously, the relationship between human and pet is closer to that of King and subject to that of best friends. If a subject feels obliged to save his King, is this decision any different from the same obligation between friends? In both cases, one party feels obliged to put aside his temporary wellbeing for another. Each outcome has personal benefits, however different: a King may bestow power or wealth on a subject, but a friend’s continued trust and companionship is also a benefit. One may argue that a dog who saves his master is simply doing this so that he’ll continue to be fed, or be rewarded with a treat or other positive re-enforcement. But the same argument could be made for the actions of a subject to his King, or even simply a friend to another friend. Yet we don’t write-off human morality so quietly. This exposes a weakness in Kant’s ability to reason the differences between lesser-known beings, possibly stemming from a slight bit of Xenophobia (if the term can be applied correctly to animals).
As for his assessment used in defense of the treatment of VIs such as Dogmeat, I think that Kant’s argument works surprisingly well, even if he didn’t intend it to be used in this manner. Kant makes one unfortunate assumption in his assessment of animal morality, that animals have no morality. Yet, while this is impossible to prove in conjunction with real animals, it is the inherent reality of VIs, so it fits.
Hi Dear I know only one think about this topic.Hostile NPC’s that are randomly encountered in the Wasteland. They are the survivors of the Megaton Explosion (Only encountered if you blew up Megaton).Savings Bonds Rates
Let me get this straight: you rescued Dogmeat and then, “being a philosopher, I wondered a bit about this choice and have been thinking about how this relates to ethics on and off since then.” That is not being a philosopher – it’s being insufferably pretentious and vapid. If Kant’s introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason is any indication, he would have probably thought the same thing, not to mention that you oversimplify and misunderstand his system of ethics horribly. I guess I should tell people that the reason I play the “good” side of the characters in BioWare’s games is based on Aquinas’ explanations on Aristotle’s Metaphysics – that will outdo you by far, even though it would be complete BS. Here’s a little hint on life: if you’re a pretentious jackass, it doesn’t matter if a bunch of similarly ignorant jackasses praise you – you’ll still be a jackass. This was as bad as listening to all those pretentious and wilfully ignorant high school kids talking about Nietzche…ugh
I don’t think there is anything close to a moral obligation to NPCs. They will not suffer, they will not be happy, and they will say the exact same things the next time you play through.
That said, I also think Kant’s view about our indirect moral duties towards non-human animals does not quite extend to NPCs. But I do think it’s somewhat there.
Games that are designed in this way, giving us moral decisions, are not properly a test, but almost a reflection of our character (I mean our personal character, not the virtual one we’re playing as). They way we play these sorts of games are indicative of the sorts of people we are.
Not to say that folks who play as an evil character are themselves evil, but instead are not content in their life for whatever reason. Conversely, someone who plays as a good character will likely not be a bad person at their core. This is of course assuming that the player chose to play this way of their own volition and there isn’t some sort of trophy for playing a good character.