|
Wikipedia has a decent summary of Kohlberg's stages, and a more in-depth one is available here, but the basics can be summarized as consisting of three levels with two stages in each (this is game-ish already!).
The first level is "Pre-Conventional Reasoning," with stage one being "obedience and punishment orientation." Moral reasoning at this stage really consists only of "what is good is that which will not get me punished." Stage two is "self-interest orientation."
Level two is "Conventional Reasoning," with stage three being "interpersonal accord and conformity." At this stage, morality is evaluated based on the impact decisions will have on relationships with others. Stage four is "authority and social-order maintaining orientation," where individuals obey laws and social conventions because they understand their importance in maintaining a functional society. Here morality is largely dictated by an outside force and viewed as relatively unchanging.
Level three, "Post-Conventional Reasoning," hosts stage five, which is "social contract orientation." Here, morality is recognized as general principles agreed upon to promote individual and community welfare. Those that lose their utility can be changed or removed. Stage six is "universal ethical principles," where morality is reasoned through a framework of abstract moral principles, and is somewhat Kantian in nature.
The interesting thing about Kohlberg's stages is he found everyone begins at stage one and move through stages (none are skipped) as they age until stopping at one of the stages. Kohlberg studied a set of subjects over 20 years and at the end of the experiment, about 30% were reasoning at stage 3, about 60% at stage four and about 10% at stage 5. Other research has confirmed a similar distribution amongst a larger sample group.
So, with that lengthy preface complete, what does this have to do with games? Kohlberg believed that development of moral reasoning depended upon a) general cognitive maturation and b) opportunities to confront moral issues, especially when discussing them with someone at a higher stage of reasoning.
Games, I believe, can serve as a springboard for the latter in a way other media cannot. Discussing why a character in a film made a decision and theorizing about alternatives is one thing. But discussing why I made a different decision from you and examining our relative consequences is something else entirely.
Most "ethical" decisions in games are truly ludicrous in scope. When the decision is between driving a bus full of school children to the ice cream shop or locking the doors and setting the bus on fire, the rightness of this decision is obvious to anyone at any stage of moral reasoning.
If we want to promote more sophisticated moral reasoning in games, the very first thing we have to do is jettison these absurd "dilemmas." While the intent may be to heighten drama by raising the stakes, it really has the opposite effect and deflates any chance of substantive thoughtful reasoning.
James Portnow wrote a great opinion piece on Gamasutra last week about moral decisions in games. One of his recommendations is losing the universal good/evil slider and I wholeheartedly agree. What this does is trap players at the 4th stage of moral reasoning (at best), where morality is derived entirely from an external source and wholly static. By creating distinct moral relationships with different groups, players have the ability to explore different moral frameworks.
If we believe games have the ability to teach and inform, and I believe that they do, we should seek out and embrace opportunities to post interesting questions to players. Especially when we can do so in ways that other media cannot.
But the types of conversations games ask players to have are shallow and based on unsophisticated moral reasoning. By creating more substantive decisions, we won't just be creating more compelling stories, we might actually be encouraging moral development in some players.
I don't agree with the sentiment that games universally infantilize players, but in this regard, it's pretty hard to dispute that the moral reasoning games ask players to use is that of, at best, teenagers. Kohlberg's stages give us pretty clear evidence for the benefits of posing moral questions with more depth and nuance. We have an opportunity to make a real difference here. All we have to do is seize it.
(The post originally appeared on Above49)
|
It is interesting to note, that historically speaking, *all* education and entertainment was originally infused with moral premises. Whether we approach from Athens (Homer's Iliad & Odyssey) or Jerusalem (The Bible), both pillars of Western Civilization created texts which exalted the moral soul, culminating in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And too, when you look at major blockbusters--from Star Wars to The Matrix to The Lord of The Rings--you will find the moral premise running up the center of the works!
We all came of age in a fiatocracy that opposed this, leading to the decline of the family, classical love and romance, the soul, and our economy. In blockbuster games such as GTA, Fallout 3, and WoW, there is no option to fight for the Constitution nor epic romance nor the classical soul. One cannot talk to the hookers and save them with words & love, but only shoot them with bullets. And in EA's Inferno, Beatrice has been consigned to hell, while Dante placed her incorruptible soul and spirit far, far above in heaven, in *Dante's* Inferno.
Well folks, opportunity abounds!
Infusing games/art/culture/literature with the moral premise is the next billion-dollar frontier in gaming/entertainment!
For the past four years, that is what my Gold 45 Revolver/Ideas Have Consequences/Moral Premise research has been devoted to!
Great to see these fellowships forming, and everyone heading on up that same mountain which the MBA/fanboys do *not* want you to climb!
The more rugged rebels, the merrier!
Best,
Dr. E :)
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/DrElliotMcGucken/1169/
I'll definitely be reading more about Kolhberg's stages, thanks for the info.
Anyway, good article! I'm definitely going to want to be reading more into Kolhberg myself. Thanks!
Thank you
Nina
Maybe the Sims works--since in order to progress in life the Sims need to work on self-improvement (improve their skills by studying, and working hard) and get along with co-workers, bosses, etc. A Sim can't be lazy and succeed, though a Sim can be evil and still succeed. Sadly, playing the Sims takes a lot of time away from your real life studying.
I'll play the agent provocateur, if I may:
"Games, I believe, can serve as a springboard for the latter in a way other media cannot. Discussing why a character in a film made a decision and theorizing about alternatives is one thing. But discussing why I made a different decision from you and examining our relative consequences is something else entirely."
The average 360-kid plays what? Yes.
And does he care about moral choices inside the game? You know the answer.
And now not only will you encourage them to learn something through the game but also to think and reflect while he/she is committed to push buttons to 'achieve' points (see neighbours blog)?
The decision to lie to mother/father saying "I will only play one hour and then go to bed" has higher adrenaline factor and is much more neuro-active than any decision made by following the moral narrative within a game. Do you really believe children reflect on the Belic-Character in GTA4 or the decisions made in Mass Effect or InFamous based on their own tiny grasp of constructs of 'ethics' or 'morality'
The online-interactions (Camping, cheating, co-op, etc...) have some choices of "Do I support my group or do I Clan-Kill xyz") but are without big consequences - that's why 'mom' and 'dad' lying is much more powerful and EDUCATIONAL than any in-game moral choice, IMHO.
When you get to the area where you can obtain the powder, a different friend of yours comes up and asks what you're doing. When you explain, he tells you that in the same area you can obtain a "Lethian potion", which will make the client forget, but leave him alive and sane. The trouble is, getting the potion is mutually exclusive from getting the powder.
The question, of course, is, which do you get? Neither offers any special reward, either way you'll never hear from the client again, and it's just a one-shot minor quest. Even though there are zero in-game consequences, I found myself staring at the screen for a good 15 minutes before finally deciding which to get.
It's moments like these in a game that can influence or reveal, relevant to this article, your moral development. A Stage 1 or 2 may quickly save and do both to find the better treasure and, once realizing there was no difference, ignore the decision for convienence; a Stage 3 or 4 person would probably select the powder based on the fact you basically promised to obtain it, or the potion based on the fact that either killing is bad if preventable, or you would want someone to give you a chance at life; a Stage 5 or 6 person would select based off of whatever they think the client would truly want.
I think the reason this kind of decision was possible was first, there was no outcome had a clear higher benefit for you (equal treasure), second, you don't know if there will be long-term consequences either way (no good/evil slider, and your in-game friends know which decision you made). Perhaps if more games had decisions with these two traits, moral choices would be much more interesting.
There can be no predictable 'game-design' that applies handy 'morality'-tables inside a game that makes you 'progress' morally to the next stage in game AND life.
That is ridiculous.
Of course you can design a setup, where your game-character is caught up in a narrative and at one point the game gives the player the controls back (from the scripted/cut scene) and say:
"What do YOU want to do NOW?"
But the decision is useless in a virtual experience. You cannot teach children to understand moral values by clicking the button you want them to click. They are not holding a controller in their hands to 'reflect' upon moral issues. Neither designed by a Kohlberg-Modell nor InfinityWard nor the good Doctors.
I can hold a book and think about Emma Bovary for days. A book is a medium that allows me to progress in my thinking and therefore in my ethical and moral decision making, because I have the time and space to abstract and apply the lessons of wrong decisions into my real life by myself.
I cannot sit in front of a 1080p-Screen with Dolby-Surround and take my sweet time to 'think' while at the same time I could 'shoot a bunch of stuff' and get my achievement points, or I want the DS game to make another funny sound when I use the stylus etc...
Moral choices are also highly loaded with cultural memes and religious undertones. You are instantly reaching a field of ambivalence and do I need to remind you guys (game-developers) how much you love 'undefined states'?
[I am not bashing the article. I love a thoughtful conversation and opposite opinions. Please, nobody should take my comments as trolling. Looking forward to hear more from you...]
You are right that you can't teach people to understand morals by clicking a button. But that you hit a button at some point does not mean there is no moral question involved. I do not think games should ever be used to teach morality, but they are certainly conducive to thinking about morality.
When choices are involved, you experience moral development. It does not mean that video games have the answers, only that a person will develop their morals in some way. Everyone knows that games aren't real, but have you really never thought, even for 10 seconds, about "What would this mean in real life?"
In games such as GTA and Fallout 3, introduce a weapon that only functions in proportion to the player's moral actions, such as those taken by Clint Eastwood in A Fistful of Dollars, where he reunites the family, and leaves the gold behind, and slays the entire outlaw posse with a Colt .45.
And then give the player a final showdown, which is found in all classical, epic art form Homer's Odyssey on down. Think big, like in the ending wherein the Fiatocracy's Vampires/Communists/Feminized MBA Fanboys swarm our lone rider in the mountain town, screaming/shrieking the words of Lenin/Marx/Feminism/Fiatism in Banshee voices, trying to claim his ideas and his soul. Alone our lone rider stands in the thundering downpour, as the lightning reveals the grotesque swarm--the horror of their collective countenance is only trumped by the screeching words. Alone he stands, with his 45; and if he has done the right thing throughout, legend has it that the 45 will glow gold and shoot Zeus's lighting, slaying the hundreds, if not thousands of rough Vampire/Communist/Zombie beasts who slouch his way, screaming, distorting the words/slogans of the declining fiatocracy in a most demonic manner.
And I guarantee you kids will grow up wanting to do the right thing!
From my gaming experience I have seen more people gravitate toward the negative side of moral choices. Is it more fun to play a evil character in a game because you you can't get away with it in real life? Game morality seems less of a teaching method and more of a outlet for people to indulge in. In some sense you can get a better idea of who you really are as a person when you have the freedom of choice without real consequences.
@Reid Psychologist love hierarchies, eh? ;) Interestingly, some games to have a Maslow-esque quality to them, in a twisted sort of way. Begin just trying to survive, become more empowered and perform more meaningful actions, etc.
@Nina I'll second An's suggest of the The Sims, specifically the latest incarnation (Sims 3). It does a better job of support long-term goals and work/life balance than either of the previous games. Other simulations like SimCity might also provide this, but it would be more abstract (e.g. making a goal of creating a nearly pollution-free city).
@An I don't think there's necessarily a problem with being able to reload and make a different decision. It can be problematic when the entire impact of a decisions occurs in the minute or two after it's made. But being able to make different decisions to understand the consequences could be beneficial, IMO. And yes, if we determine these decisions are affecting, then we will have to try and understand what we are saying and why, just like creators of any other media.
Re: your second comment, film and theatre takes place in a very specific set of circumstances for a limit period of time. After the film/play ceases, the audience can be left to think about what transpired. Games, crafted with intent, could do the same. The fact that some games award achievements for shooting stuff is circumstantial. It's not fundamental to games and what I'm interested in understanding is how to make games that aren't about that but are still affecting and engaging. It's harder than provoking fear and rage through violent interactions, but I think it's the only way we'll get people to say "playing that game changed my life" the way some do about books/films/plays/music.
@Lee Upon you mentioning that, I remember that bit of FFTA2 now. It is interesting how what was likely meant to be a relatively inconsequential moment for a little thought can actually be quite affecting. Those are the kind of moments we should be seeking, IMHO.
@Louis I think that's exactly right. Moral education (whatever that even means) isn't what I'm discussing here. If Kohlberg's research is accurate, it's the act of discussing moral reasoning with other *people* (specifically those at higher stages) that facilitate moral development. What games can provide, I think, is more things to talk about. And I think that conversation will more interesting when the participants can actually discuss their own agency and actions, instead of hypotheticals ("what if Hamlet hadn't killed Polonius?").
Kohlberg's own quintessential hypothetical, The Heinz Dilemma, is but a paragraph that takes a minute to reciting. But it can still foster all kinds of interesting moral discussions. Certainly games are capable of the same, if not better.
@Dan Some people are certainly drawn to defying norms and conventions, but I'm not sure it's exactly right to call that an "outlet." But as above, it's not about teaching, it's about providing opportunities for meaningful conversation. And as good as Fallout 3, it's most discussed decision (Megaton and Tenpenny) is not substantive at all. The Oasis, however, is a far better example of decision that could result in interesting thought and conversation.
Which moves to the overall problem: at any point in a game where you reward a player for making the "right" decision, you're limiting moral advancement from ever reaching "Post-Conventional Reasoning" (most likely stage five, but certainly stage six) because you're still positing yourself (the game, the programmer) as the authority, making the reason for the decision (possibility of reward) external to the moral dilemma itself.
What might be successful is a game that offered the possibility of different play styles, each with their own moral implication. These different play styles would allow for a variety of player experiences, but would have no tangible reward in themselves. For example, in an RTS, the typical play style is highly imperialist-- you exhaust the resources in one area and so expand to others in order to continue increasing production. In a lot of ways this mimics traditional mercantile systems. In WC3, you make outlying "expansions" that do nothing but produce raw materials which are then used to make the finished products in your main base. In place of this, there could be races whose play styles reach toward something more of a sustainable lifestyle. The Nightelves, for example, don't consume trees in the same way, which often makes the bases more easily defendable... this of course could be pushed further... instead of oil independence, you could try for gold independence or something like that.... in fighting games, you could play defensively and thus exhaust your opponent instead of knocking him unconscious... etc., etc.
The main point is that the moral decision itself, and the different playing experience that provides, must be the reward. Again, as you long as you reward players for making "correct" moral decisions, you're impedeing their moral development.