Does morality matter in video games?

[Kamaduck]

It should be spelt out exactly what the reasoning is.

Is it because it depicts an immoral act? But then watching reality TV shows which show people steal from shops, and so on, are also immoral. Reading the newspaper which describes crime in detail.

And what about Crime TV or other crime shows? Are these moral then? Is one sinning if one watches Crime and Investigation TV where scenes of crimes are reconstructed?

I’m not sure I know why, although I’m pretty sure it’s something to do with the fact that sex is supposed to be an intimate act between two married people, and pornography perverts that by displaying it to third parties.

Of course, the less explicit the scene is, and the less visual the media, the more confusing this discussion gets. The cutoff for “not porn” is somewhere past the text of Song of Solomon. Other than that, I really don’t know.

It’s definitely not because it depicts an immoral act. Depicting immoral acts isn’t wrong, in and of itself. Encouraging them is, but that’s not the same thing.

 

[Tenofovir]

Gotta disagree with you here, Tenofovir. I think porn has more to do with the intended use of the product and what’s actually contained in it than the reaction of the person watching. Gay porn doesn’t stop being gay porn when it’s being viewed by a heterosexual man. Likewise, non-pornographic media doesn’t become porn just because the viewer is aroused.

I must disagree and say that yes if it becomes arousing for you it becomes porn. It after all becomes something intimate - as is a conjugal act. No need to have all aspects thereof. Only activities in marriage should arouse you.

I’d say that in the former case, you’d be committing the sin of watching porn (and therefore being complicit in its creation and supporting those who make it, etc), and in the latter case, you’d be sinning by lusting (or at least putting yourself in the near occasion of sin).

That’s only true if you paid for the porn, but say someone lent you a tape?

But I still think it’s possible for media to communicate that two characters are having sex without that media actually being porn.

Difficult one. It still possibly puts people in the near occasion of sin. Everyone is different. Some may be influenced by that.

Yeah, that’s different. I don’t have a handy-dandy argument as to why, but I’m certain that’s different.

Not so sure.

I dunno about this. I would definitely say that there’s a more immediate danger for most people with depictions of sexual activity, but I think there are dangers with regard to simulated violence, too. Anything that causes us to delight in the idea of sin strikes me as a fairly bad idea, since the stories we consume definitely change us.

Delight in immoral acts is a good point.

In all cases, though, I’d say the sin with choices we make in games is in how we allow them to affect us. It’s not objectively wrong to make a choice in a game that would be sinful in real life, but it could be wrong if we allow repeatedly making those choices to change us for the worse.

And there is zero scientific evidence which shows that violent games lead to violence itself or other negative behaviours. Of course maybe the effects are more subtle.

Well, I’m no expert, but I’m going based on this:

“2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.”

Sexual arousal plays an important aspect of this. = bolded bits.

The removal of simulated or sexual acts from intimacy of marriage is probably key here though. Argument being it insults (for lack of a better word) or demeans the sacred sacrament of marriage.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Tenofovir]

I

It’s definitely not because it depicts an immoral act. Depicting immoral acts isn’t wrong, in and of itself. Encouraging them is, but that’s not the same thing.

I still don’t see why depicting sex is wrong and depicting a criminal act not so.

When you depict a scene of theft, you are also depicting the breaking of a Commandment.

What makes the perversion of marriage different to the perversion of a Commandment?

What’s the difference?

 

[Tenofovir]

Softcore porn, is still sinful.

No dispute here.

Regarding nudity in art, is a much debated topic. From what I’ve read, basically it depends of the portrayal, the levels of dettachment from certain sensuousness in the depictions, etc. And is more recommended, from what I’ve read, etc. Is to simply avoid nudity in art, unless necessary, and there, prudence is needed too (so, it would be recommended for the artist to pray before studying it, etc).

Well yes it obviously is a much debated topic. However there is no lack of nudity in the past, especially in religious art. Should we say those church authorities were in the wrong to have those? Are we maybe not a little more prudish than they were?

Basically, sins against the 6th and 9th Commandment are different.

Why? Need natural law arguments, please.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I still don’t see why depicting sex is wrong and depicting a criminal act not so.

When you depict a scene of theft, you are also depicting the breaking of a Commandment.

What makes the perversion of marriage different to the perversion of a Commandment?

What’s the difference?

One of the differences, is that depictions of sins related to the 6th and 9th Commandments are more likely to tempt people, and are a different category compared to theft.

 

[Tenofovir]

One of the differences, is that depictions of sins related to the 6th and 9th Commandments are more likely to tempt people, and are a different category compared to theft.

Porn defiles marriage so to say in my crude language. Depictions of theft defile justice and honesty between people. It would be similar to say dishonouring your parents or blasphemy.

Are depictions of an actor cursing God on stage sin or not. I think in some other threads it was agreed it was not sin per se.

I don’t see the difference. The argument that it may tempt people is not convincing because temptation is subjective. And the Catechism gives a reason why porn is bad in that it depicts something which is supposed to be sacred and makes a mockery of it.

 

[CesarAugustus]

No dispute here.

Well yes it obviously is a much debated topic. However there is no lack of nudity in the past, especially in religious art. Should we say those church authorities were in the wrong to have those? Are we maybe not a little more prudish than they were?

In Sistine Chapel paintings, for example, during some time, there were leaves added to the genitals of the figures.

But still, these nudes are different to more sensuous depictions of nudity.

Why? Need natural law arguments, please.

There is not only Natural Law, but Divine Law too.

I haven’t researched that question deeply, but I think it has to do with Matthew 5:28, about looking at a woman lustfully. Also, another reason would be that these depictions are more tempting.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Porn defiles marriage so to say in my crude language. Depictions of theft defile justice and honesty between people. It would be similar to say dishonouring your parents or blasphemy.

Are depictions of an actor cursing God on stage sin or not. I think in some other threads it was agreed it was not sin per se.

I don’t see the difference. The argument that it may tempt people is not convincing because temptation is subjective. And the Catechism gives a reason why porn is bad in that it depicts something which is supposed to be sacred and makes a mockery of it.

Taking God’s name in vain is sinful. And is not something simulated, if someone says that, is actually said by them.

A bank robbery in a movie, is simulated. They aren’t robbing a real bank.

There is a sermon in Audio Sancto about that, I think is called “movies”.

 

[Tenofovir]

In Sistine Chapel paintings, for example, during some time, there were leafs added to the genitals of the figures.

But still, these nudes are different to more sensuous depictions of nudity.

Yes and no. For some people they could have been sensuous enough. This is pretty subjective. Also genitals themselves are not the only thing which arouses.

There is not only Natural Law, but Divine Law too.

Natural Law would be Divine Law too. God is First Cause. Natural Law and Holy Scripture also do not contradict each other.

I haven’t researched that question deeply, but I think it has to do with Matthew 5:28, about looking at a woman lustfully. Also, another reason would be that these depictions are more tempting.

I agree about Matthew 5:28 but it has to do with lust ergo sexual pleasure/arousal/etc.

We’re talking about the first part of the Catechism

“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public),…”

Those points go beyond Christ’s prohibition in terms of lust.

 

[Tenofovir]

Taking God’s name in vain is sinful. And is not something simulated, if someone says that, is actually said by them.

That would mean that depictions of crime, lying etc would be similar.

A bank robbery in a movie, is simulated. They aren’t robbing a real bank.

Simulated sex acts are also immoral.

Also what of real depiction of crime, such as depiction of real video footage showing a criminal act? (lots of that on Crime channels.)

 

[CesarAugustus]

Yes and no. For some people they could have been sensuous enough. This is pretty subjective. Also genitals themselves are not the only thing which arouses.

Yes, there aren’t the only arousing parts, but the point was about the acceptance of these paintings in the past.

As I said earlier, from what I’ve read, the most dettached from sensuousness, the better. Going beyond meraly appealing to the senses.

Something to consider:

What is the focus?
Is there a provocative intention?
How are the figures depicted?
etc.

Natural Law would be Divine Law too. God is First Cause. Natural Law and Holy Scripture also do not contradict each other.

These aren’t interchangeable terms. From what I understand, Natural Law is a manifestation of Divine Law, not the same thing.

I agree about Matthew 5:28 but it has to do with lust ergo sexual pleasure/arousal/etc.

We’re talking about the first part of the Catechism

“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public),…”

Those points go beyond Christ’s prohibition in terms of lust.

So you want a precise explanation of why these are a different category.

 

[CesarAugustus]

That would mean that depictions of crime, lying etc would be similar.

Why? Not all sins are the same.

Simulated sex acts are also immoral.

Yes, because the actors or the ones involved in them are sinning making them.

I think is self evident why blasphemy or pornography are in a different level compared to other depictions.

Also what of real depiction of crime, such as depiction of real video footage showing a criminal act? (lots of that on Crime channels.)

I think that is just showing something that already happened. Also, these aren’t at the same level of porn.

Or at the level of taking God’s name in vain.

 

[Nate8080]

OK, making out is a whole different ballgame than sex, regardless of presentation. It’s a fundamentally different action that we routinely debate on these boards, so it’s generally a gray area even in real life.

Scenes that include characters kissing can move the plot along, because they can reveal how characters relate to each other and interact. Character interaction, as a rule, is more important to me than plot, regardless of what I’m watching.

And I disagree. I don’t generally play games with sex scenes in them (my tastes skew towards grand strategy and zelda/pokémon/etc), but I do sometimes watch television with non-explicit sex scenes (or scenes of people making out, since you brought that up), and I find that such scenes often move the plot along or give the viewer insight into the characters. If a story makes a habit of wasting my time with random nonsense that contributes nothing to the narrative, that in itself is reason enough for me to drop it.

I guess I might as well say that I ID as asexual-spectrum. I could be incredibly wrong and thoroughly deluded about myself, but on the off chance that I’m not, that would suggest that there are, in fact, other reasons to watch scenes that may include non-explicit sex or making out. I therefore believe that at least some percentage of allosexual people are watching for those reasons.

Y’know, as someone who doesn’t generally play games with the option to make out with prostitutes, I really couldn’t tell you. It sounds like a bad decision. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for a game to include a scene that has both characters making out and some addition to the story or character development.

I’m really not sure what to say to this. I don’t think asexual people are immune to lust, and I don’t think allosexual people are compelled to lust whenever they see people making out, but neither of those are really related to the topic at hand.

And you would be entirely right, Cesar. But I don’t know that “sex scene” always equals “porn”, and that’s definitely not the case if we’re broadening this discussion to include kissing.

When I say “porn” or “sex” in a video game, I mean explicit scenes with nudity and active intercourse. Obviously kissing isn’t really a big thing and I don’t think most people would get turned on by something like that. I was talking about deliberately choosing to watch EXPLICIT nude or sex scenes…that would be a form of pornography and would be immoral. And as I said before, I don’t see why anyone would want to watch explicit scenes other than to take pleasure in them, they don’t advance the story whatsoever and are HIGHLY inappropriate.

 

[Tenofovir]

Yes, there aren’t the only arousing parts, but the point was about the acceptance of these paintings in the past.

And they seemed to be more accepted. These days we seem to be more prudish although it varies by geography too.

As I said earlier, from what I’ve read, the most dettached from sensuousness, the better. Going beyond meraly appealing to the senses.

Something to consider:

What is the focus?
Is there a provocative intention?
How are the figures depicted?
etc.

But occasion of sin is still pretty subjective. It would be great to have a priest chime in here.

These aren’t interchangeable terms. From what I understand, Natural Law is a manifestation of Divine Law, not the same thing.

Catholic Encylopedia on Natural Law.

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). The eternal law is God’s wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

The norm, however, of conduct is not some particular element or aspect of our nature. The standard is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to a special end. Actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires (see GOOD).

By Divine Law do you mean Holy Scripture and God’s revealed laws?

So you want a precise explanation of why these are a different category.

Yes.

 

[Tenofovir]

When I say “porn” or “sex” in a video game, I mean explicit scenes with nudity and active intercourse. Obviously kissing isn’t really a big thing and I don’t think most people would get turned on by something like that. I was talking about deliberately choosing to watch EXPLICIT nude or sex scenes…that would be a form of pornography and would be immoral. And as I said before, I don’t see why anyone would want to watch explicit scenes other than to take pleasure in them, they don’t advance the story whatsoever and are HIGHLY inappropriate.

People get turned on by a variety of things. Yes someone who is sexually deprived will probably find kissing to be a turn on as something proceeding to the next step which would be more active sex. So things are not as clear cut.

 

[CesarAugustus]

About making out:

In various examinations of conscience, making out, or passionate kissing, is included:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/reconciliation/examination-of-conscience/

From St Alphonsus (Doctor of Moral Theology):

…] every time someone with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will delights in carnal or sensual pleasure associated with to whom he is not married he commits a mortal sin. This is not only true with kisses but also with respect to other touches performed for carnal pleasure. The reason is that any delight taken in carnal pleasure, that is to say any delight taken in stirring up the appetites which surround the creative power, is a movement towards the martial act …]

From the Denzinger catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php:

1140 40. It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible * delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.

That is one of the erroneous propositions in moral matters that are condemned.

From EWTN:

Directly Stimulating Actions

The first is the action that is, by its very nature, so closely related to the sexual desires that they serve no other purpose except to stimulate and arouse the persons involved. Some examples of these would be: prolonged and passionate kissing, impure embracing or petting, and sexual intercourse.

These actions are always gravely wrong between unmarried people, and no “good intention” can ever make them right. If the action is committed intentionally and with sufficient reflection, then it is a mortal sin.

 

[Kamaduck]

I must disagree and say that yes if it becomes arousing for you it becomes porn. It after all becomes something intimate - as is a conjugal act. No need to have all aspects thereof. Only activities in marriage should arouse you.

And I would say that porn refers specifically to real or simulated sexual acts, according to the catechism. If looking at a fashion magazine causes you to lust, then you’re guilty of lust, and possibly of deliberately putting yourself in a near occasion of sin. You’re not also guilty of looking at porn.

That’s only true if you paid for the porn, but say someone lent you a tape?

True enough. But I still think it’s a separate sin. I suppose if you’re looking at something unambiguously pornographic, then you’re still removing an intimate act from it’s proper setting.

Difficult one. It still possibly puts people in the near occasion of sin. Everyone is different. Some may be influenced by that.

All true, but that’s not the same as saying that something is pornographic.

Not so sure.

I don’t know where to begin to debate this point, so I’m just going to let it go for now.

And there is zero scientific evidence which shows that violent games lead to violence itself or other negative behaviours. Of course maybe the effects are more subtle.

I don’t think they do. It seems more likely that they’d be just one of the many things that chips away at our concern for the dignity of human life, so we’re less likely to be appalled by it in real life.

The removal of simulated or sexual acts from intimacy of marriage is probably key here though. Argument being it insults (for lack of a better word) or demeans the sacred sacrament of marriage.

Yeah, that’s what I would think.

When I say “porn” or “sex” in a video game, I mean explicit scenes with nudity and active intercourse. Obviously kissing isn’t really a big thing and I don’t think most people would get turned on by something like that. I was talking about deliberately choosing to watch EXPLICIT nude or sex scenes…that would be a form of pornography and would be immoral. And as I said before, I don’t see why anyone would want to watch explicit scenes other than to take pleasure in them, they don’t advance the story whatsoever and are HIGHLY inappropriate.

I think I can agree with this. I think there are many sex scenes that this doesn’t describe, though.

 

[CesarAugustus]

About making out:

In various examinations of conscience, making out, or passionate kissing, is included:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/reconciliation/examination-of-conscience/

From St Alphonsus (Doctor of Moral Theology):

…] every time someone with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will delights in carnal or sensual pleasure associated with to whom he is not married he commits a mortal sin. This is not only true with kisses but also with respect to other touches performed for carnal pleasure. The reason is that any delight taken in carnal pleasure, that is to say any delight taken in stirring up the appetites which surround the creative power, is a movement towards the martial act …]

From the Denzinger catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php:

1140 40. It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible * delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.

That is one of the erroneous propositions in moral matters that are condemned.

From EWTN:

Directly Stimulating Actions

The first is the action that is, by its very nature, so closely related to the sexual desires that they serve no other purpose except to stimulate and arouse the persons involved. Some examples of these would be: prolonged and passionate kissing, impure embracing or petting, and sexual intercourse.

These actions are always gravely wrong between unmarried people, and no “good intention” can ever make them right. If the action is committed intentionally and with sufficient reflection, then it is a mortal sin.

 

[Tenofovir]

And I would say that porn refers specifically to real or simulated sexual acts, according to the catechism. If looking at a fashion magazine causes you to lust, then you’re guilty of lust, and possibly of deliberately putting yourself in a near occasion of sin. You’re not also guilty of looking at porn.

Soft core porn is not porn then? That section of the Catechism does not involve soft core porn and only “hard core” or simulated “hard core”. But the same rationale could apply though. That woman who is modelling naked with the intent to titillate is doing that in front of a camera for money, instead of doing so with her husband or not doing it at all.

True enough. But I still think it’s a separate sin. I suppose if you’re looking at something unambiguously pornographic, then you’re still removing an intimate act from it’s proper setting.

Why necessarily unambiguously?

All true, but that’s not the same as saying that something is pornographic.

Only if you define only sex as pornographic. But mainstream use of pornography includes soft core too. So there would be a difference between sex and mere “erotica”? ( I hate these terms.)

 

[CesarAugustus]

Soft core porn is not porn then? That section of the Catechism does not involve soft core porn and only “hard core” or simulated “hard core”. But the same rationale could apply though. That woman who is modelling naked with the intent to titillate is doing that in front of a camera for money, instead of doing so with her husband or not doing it at all.

Why necessarily unambiguously?

Only if you define only sex as pornographic. But mainstream use of pornography includes soft core too. So there would be a difference between sex and mere “erotica”? ( I hate these terms.)

Softcore would be covered on the Catechism text, and hentai too, since these are simulations too.