By taking part, and living within the safety and protection of a society, we already begin to limit the amount of freedom we may exercise. This is referred to as a social contract and all people are governed by these rules as long as they exist within the boundaries of civilization [this includes even our ‘oh so free’ America]. Although we call our own civilization free, we must accept this premise as the foundation of the formation of the laws that allow our ‘freedom’ to truly be realized. This touches upon Emmanuel Kant’s own description of freedom as our ability to create and follow laws of our own, separate from those laws regulated by nature. Participating in such a community, and thus the social contract, results in the acceptance of the premise; that the ideals, laws and morals of those whom share your community will also be similar to your own. This comes to pass, in America, through our assumption that the people whom we elect will act in our best interest, and take our own voices into account when making decisions that affect us as a whole. The problem with this line of thinking is revealed when we experience a leader, or a group, whom attempt to enforce their own ideas that contest with our given rights within the founding of our country.
Recently, it seems, there have been a myriad of people crying out that their fundamental rights have been, or are being taken away by those whom we have elected to power. Off the top of my head I can think of two examples, one being this article referring to Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed bill, and the other being in relation to the proposed mosque in New York City. I think that both of these situations share a similar background, however only in the sense that a sophist shares in the abilities of a philosopher. In other words: one is full of sh*t, while the other has justification to its declaration of outrage.
In regards to the building of the large mosque in relative proximity of Ground Zero, I find absolutely no argument against its creation, other than the growing Islamophobia that is taking over our nation. The people against the construction of this mosque use the argument that it is a disrespectful act to those who lost their lives, yet the only connection between the two acts is the fact that the bombers were Muslim extremists. The Islamic religion as a whole did not support these men, or their actions, but instead recognized them as delusional individuals who used a religion based in peacefulness in an attempt to justify their horrible actions. This is not justification to demonize the whole religion of Islam, especially not in a country that claims religious freedom, and a separation of church and state. The conclusion that would be drawn from the banning of their ability to create their place of worship would be that all Muslims are terrorists, or at least that only Muslims can be terrorists, which is simply not true. After the Oklahoma bombing, no one [to my knowledge] began discriminating against lapsed Catholics [which Timothy McVeigh admitted to being in his March 30th, 1996 interview with Time magazine].
All of these points aside, our constitution was set in such a way that demands a separation of church from state. This not only means that the church may not influence the decisions of the government, but also that the government may not interfere with a religious community, provided that it is upholding the country’s laws. The Muslim community of New York city has not breeched any of these laws in their proposal to build their mosque, and thus any action on behalf of the government to impede their building process would indeed be an encroachment on their freedom of religious practice. Thus, I am inclined to support such a struggle, unlike the struggle represented by those opposing Governor Schwarzenegger’s law.
Governor Schwarzenegger, although as ironic as it may seem coming from the former terminator, has proposed that violent and sexual video games are corrupting the minds of our youth, and promoting real acts of violence from them. As Alexander Nehamas has pointed out in his blog, Plato’s Pop Culture Problem, and Ours, this is not a new argument. This argument can be traced all the way back to Plato’s Republic, where indeed Socrates makes an argument against the false witness that is portrayed by the poets in an attempt to entertain. This argument is founded upon the idea that this entertainment overextends itself, no longer being classified by the public as mere entertainment, but instead as some form of truth which Plato argues is a perversion and must not be allowed. His reasoning is as such: If the people see the characters in such a play as conveying a message of truth, then they will follow the examples led by the characters within such a play i.e. imitate them. Plato goes even further and offers his viewpoint that they will not just mimic any character from the entertainment; rather they will imitate the worst characters. His logic is explained as “the irritable character furnishes a great variety of materials for imitation; whereas the prudent and calm character is so constantly uniform and unchanging, that it is not easily imitated” (Republic, Book X, 604).
I think that this point made by Plato is very true. You only have to look at our nation’s top television show characters in order to discover a growing affinity toward anti-heroes, such as Dexter, which displays a serial killer as a hero, or House, which honors a horribly bitter and generally mean physician as its hero. These characters may easily be defended by the masses, saying that only a fool would take these qualities as worthy of emulation, and while that may be true, even Aristotle agrees that youth are subject to this form of ‘foolishness.’ He states “Imitation is natural to man from childhood, one of his advantages over the lower animals being this, that he is the most imitative creature in the world, and learns at first by imitation” (Poetics, 4). This theory is easily tested, and anyone who has spent time with young children after viewing an action movie, such as Power Rangers or something of equal violent content, will attest to the behavior of these children mirroring that of the characters within the film.
Now the subject of Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed law does not even attack films of profanity and violence, instead it focuses on a different more involved form of entertainment, which I would argue is even more dangerous than cinematic entertainment: video game violence and sexuality. This form of entertainment, I would argue, is more detrimental to our youth as it includes them in the act of violence on a different level. No longer are they merely spectators subjecting themselves to watching this mature content, they actively participate in the fictitious deeds of violence. Further, as the gaming industry progresses into more realistic graphics, the lines between fiction and reality gradually become blurred.
If indeed Plato and Aristotle are correct in their analysis of our faculties of learning during our youth [through imitation], and it seems as though they are, this form of entertainment is a promotion of a desecration of many of our societies ethical guidelines. As a society we find it necessary to restrict many privileges from our youth until such a time as we deem them responsible enough to handle them i.e. driving a car, buying cigarettes, consuming alcohol. These video games already receive a rating [anywhere from ‘E’ meaning everyone, to ‘M’ meaning mature] that is meant to dissuade people from selling graphic games to minors, yet without a repercussion such as Schwarzenegger’s proposed fine, I see no incentive to attempt the enforcement of such ratings. I would argue that this precaution is as important to the safety of our youth’s mental health, as the precautions already set in relation to their physical health by banning their ability to consume tobacco and alcohol.
While there are many cases of true threats upon the individual rights of those living within our society, I must take offence to the use of such justification in defense of selling graphic material to minors. Our reality is explicit enough, and I see no true defendable argument as to why we should allow extra, fictitious, extreme violence to taint the minds of our youth, especially with the plausible repercussion of their imitating the violence that they experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment