GTA: The City In Speech

In the republic Socrates when talking about the guardians who will be appointed to protect the city will be educated. He says that they should be not only physically trained but also mentally trained through the use of music. With music they will be trained by the stories contained there in to understand not only what behavior is agreeable to society, but also their role in the polis should be. Socrates makes this clear when he says, "We first begin by telling stories to children?And surely they are false on the whole, though they have some truth in them(Republic 377a5). Socrates notes that these stories used to teach the children will "on the whole" be false, but also contain an element of truth. This concept of the false story with true elements used for the purposes of teaching will later be labeled by Socrates as, "the noble lie". For example, a noble lie that is popular among contemporary american house holds would be, something like Santa Clause: telling a child that if they are good once a year they will get gifts from a seasonal deity, but if they are bad that same deity will punish them. Therefore to Socrates the story is merely a vehicle to impressing upon children that if they obey rules they will be rewarded, and if they break them they will suffer negative consequences.

But, this hits on something that Socrates just talked about a few lines back, I.e., the "noble lie". While Socrates qualifies this lie by saying that it is noble, this does not make it any less oriented towards truth. True the ultimate goal of the noble lie is to impress upon children lesson that will help socioty. But, is it right to violate the societal standard of what is socially acceptable to teach children those same lessons? Essentially what we have is a lie told for the purpose of keeping children from lying. Socrates himself says that lying, through stories, is the only way to impose moral lessons on children from such an early age. But, in the process of educating these children the teacher would be breaking the law of the city in speech. Thus we have a new predicament: is lying ok if it is for the good of the city?

Though the article from The New York Times is one revolved around violence in video games and the possible manifestation of violent actions in children through being exposed to that medium, it seems to me that the issue becomes not only wether we sensor and commit hypocrisy. But, also wether we judge for someone else whether or not they are mentally capable of interpreting art for themselves.

This issue regards adults discerning what is and isn't acceptable material for them to be influenced by.In the case of children I agree that there should be censorship. I think we can all agree that a child does not for himself have the ability to discern between what parts of a story he is told are and are not metaphorical. We all see this. This is why children are crushed when we tell them after that Santa clause isn't really. Why? Because when we told them the story of the man in the red suit, they were not able to discern what part of the story was true and what was not. As adults we can see that the grain of truth to the story was that presents arrive on Dec.25 if you are good, and if you are bad they do not. But, for a child they have no ability to distinguish between the parts of the story that are super furious and the parts that are factually valid. For this reason, as we all know, we keep the truth hidden behind lies for children so that they might understand them.

However I see this issue as being one of censorship among adults being of a different nature. While children are not able to discern between the moral lesson in a story and the actions in a story, adults are able to. Adults are conditioned to being told lies through out their lives. Sometimes these lies involve truth, sometimes they do not. But, in stories moral lessons are almost always inherent. Since this is the case, most adults are able to draw the moral lesson out of a tale, without being duped by the fictional details.

In the case of video games there is already a rating system in place to keep a person of an inappropriate age from purchasing it. Since this is the case, it is just as difficult for a child to be exposed to a video game beyond their years as it would be for them to access any other from of media that they are not mature enough to handle. Therefore this question is not one of protecting impressionable young minds from violent media. It is a question of wether we should protect adult autonomous agents from themselves. I say themselves, because of what has already implicitly but not directly been stated : that it is not the media that imposes these moral lessons on people it is that persons own interpretation of the media. As before the issue is almost a guessing game of how different aspects of the media will influence a particular individual. Two people could watch the same violent act and one could understand the connection between the violent act and punishment. The other could miss the connection entirely, Or make a correlation that was unintended by the creator. Such as violence in a video game leading to a benefit or a reward.

With this in mind, it truly seems only like a guessing game for the censor. He must attempt to censor what he believes the censor-e could potentially make the wrong correlation between.This is exactly why we censor media that is geared towards children, and do not censor that media for adults. Adults are able to make the correct correlation between two correct concepts in media, and for themselves make a cause effect correlation. But, children have not yet had it impressed upon them that some actions warrant praise and some actions decent.

According to Socrates then it seems to be of little consequence the content of the media, as long as the message, or the end result on the subject is the correct one. And this can be seen again in the Republic. Socrates has already said that it is the goal of the story to impress upon children societal lessons. One of these lessons is lying. On line 389c Socrates commands, "So, if [anyone] is caught telling lies in the city... he will be punished for introducing a practice that is a subversive and destructive of a city as of a ship."In this way Socrates notes that for a citizen to lie to his ruler is as if a patient lied to his doctor. Of course this could lead to the doctor giving the patient the wrong treatment and possibly hurting himFor example if there is violence and cursing, and all sorts of other socially disagreeable content in media so be it, as long as the message is trill right. Since the original article takes the example of the video game “Grand theft auto” I will use it as my example. FOr those that do not engage in this form of media, “Grand Theft Auto” is what is commonly referred to as a “sand box” style video game. This sub-genre receives its name quite simply from the plastic box that is filled with sand. Essentially the idea is that within only the confines of the the game the player can do anything and everything that one might choose to. As the protagonist of the game the player can choose to commit any number of crimes or societally detrimental acts. This seems to be the sticking point for the former Governor.

Therefore with all of the facts considered, it would seem to me that Socrates would perfectly fine with "Grand Theft Auto" being sold and enjoyed by the citizens of the city in speech. As it is being viewed by an audience that is able to discern for themselves the correct correlation between events in the game. As well as the fact that the events in the game have appropriate consequences. Which seems to me Socrates main concern with any form of media.