The Gamers Who Killed Their Baby And The Hippocratic Oath

There was a horrific case that came to light last week, one in which a married couple with a baby neglected it so that they could play online games at a PC Room.  The baby died from malnourishment.  Reading the article I linked to churns my stomach.  As a father of a small child the thought of my child going hungry so that I can satisfy my desires sickens me.  That’s one of the reasons I’m not a aspiring novelist or rock star or photographer or blogger turned correspondent or aspiring pro-gamer or poet, or any other such hopeless thing.  These two people wanted to do something so badly that it caused them to kill their baby.  They failed in the primary function of human beings, the one that necessarily supersedes all others, because they liked looking at representations of themselves doing things in a virtual world.  Qualitatively this is not much different from abandoning your responsibilities in order to imagine up representations of yourself doing any other such thing, say, being successful at the aforementioned hopeless endeavors (and let me just say that if you’re one of the truly talented people with the dedication and commitment to make it in any of those fields I wish you all the best, but for the rest of you, don’t waste your time).

Yesterday we had a guest speaker in my Electronic Commerce class, Mr. Yunho Chung, who writes a blog called Korean Insight.  His lecture was interesting and thought-provoking, and I left it with a new perspective on Korean technology. The lecture maintained a generally positive tone, mainly focusing on communications technology-based business innovations that are occurring in Korea now.  He did briefly touch on the downsides of the technology here, mentioning ActiveX and finally making reference to the murder case above.  Mr. Chung stated that with the good comes the bad, and that the Korean government is on the cutting edge of internet addiction treatment.  He brought up a game created by Korean game company NCsoft called Aion, stating that it and others like it are ‘very addictive’ and that NCsoft is required to contribute to a fund to help the government fight internet addiction.

This juxtaposition, of the murder case with the knowing production of a new addictive medium, with its prudent actuarial assumption that it will lead to a certain number of addictions, among them a certain number of broken lives, and, although perhaps nobody has the courage to predict it, a certain number of neglected children, and the subsequent attempt to quantify in monetary terms the company’s responsibility for the damage its product is expected do to society, really jarred me.  Later in the afternoon while reading Allan Bloom’s Interpretive Essay on Plato’s Republic, I came across a passage that brought all this to mind.  Socrates and friends are discussing what justice is.  It’s first suggested that it’s an Art (we may say a skill), like medicine or farming, a skill that is learned and carried out for others and for one’s own wage.  Then the case is made that doctors are both experts at saving lives and killing, farmers experts on raising crops would also be the most able destroyers of cropland, etc.  Thus if justice is an Art, then those adept at it would also be masters of injustice.  It’s suggested then that justice is not an art.

Our doctors are supposed to obey the Hippocratic oath*, and that obedience would, in a sense, make them reliable.  But, ultimately, the most important thing is the knowledge of the goodness of that oath, of the reasons why following it is salutary.  The worthwhileness of a doctor’s activity depends on this; and, no matter how technically proficient he may be, his talents are useless or dangerous if there is no knowledge about this first question.

We accept that this is the case with doctors.  We do the same in my profession.  CPAs are required to adhere to strict standards of ethics and independence.  This is the case not because CPAs are expected to meet these standards, but because they are expected, as relatively rational human actors, to bump up against these ethical standards.  The standards are like guard rails to keep them in line.

Kurt Vonnegut often wrote about the creation of the atomic bomb as science’s loss of innocence.  Until that point, scientists could follow their natural desires to see their knowledge carried out in the real world while turning a blind eye to the ethical and moral implications.  Was the science that went into the nuclear bomb so vital that it could be performed on anybody’s dime?  What about the German scientists who came to the US and happily worked on the bomb, thoughtless as to the consequences.  When Oppenheimer saw the bomb used to deadly effect in Japan, he is said to have come to realize the nature of the bargain he had made to pursue his desire for science.  After that point, in Vonnegut’s eyes, no scientist had the luxury of turning a blind eye unwarned as to the possible consequences.

This is a dangerous argument, in that it’s anti-science and we are a relatively pro-science society.  Taking this argument to its natural end would make scientists’ moral compasses the arbiters of what science gets done.  Nonetheless it is obvious that the coolness of creating new digital worlds blinds all those concerned to the negative consequences.  They are dealt with ex post facto with internet addiction treatment and other afterthought measures.

Taking it back to the computer programmers, designers, writers, and all the other people who make these addictive products, it is difficult to impossible to say in the world we live in today that any of them is particularly responsible for the death of that little girl.  It would be dangerous perhaps to even suggest it.  Nonetheless Bloom’s writing, this murder and the thing I’ve read in multiple Vonnegut books 50 times since I was a kid have coalesced in this thought: Should anyone who has an Art, anyone with the skill to do anything follow some form of Hippocratic Oath?

 

*The Hippocratic Oath is as follows:

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art–if they desire to learn it–without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Advertisements

~ by Joshing on March 10, 2010.

3 Responses to “The Gamers Who Killed Their Baby And The Hippocratic Oath”

  1. excuse my long rambling comment:

    first off, I’d like to “like” this post, but it’s not facebook so i can’t. anyway, I completely agree that companies should be held more responsible for their products, especially after reading this (http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html) while also knowing that i played MMOs for years that had that little ironic “hey, maybe you should go outside” message every time i logged in…

    but as a gamer, i think people really do tend to villanize video games more than any other form of entertainment. companies in general should be more responsible… do you think the case of game designers purposely making games addicting would fall under the same umbrella as not selling conflict diamonds, not polluting during the manufacture of popular foods, not engaging in whatever unethical business practice? because the company in that case would be completely, 100% responsible for their actions. or is it just obvious good business practice to make a game that people will keep playing when your monetization model is based off of their continuous use?

    but at the same time, when the Columbine victims’ parents sued a bunch of major video game producers for damages after the death of their children because the shooters were known to have played violent video games, the suit was obviously unsuccessful, because someone who goes shooting up a school is obviously not having the normal response to a product that millions of people interact with every year without negative consequences. and the neglectful parents are the same way — they are, in no way shape or form, NORMAL. they were fucked up in the head to begin with and they happened to have video games as a hobby (probably because of some correlational relationship of antisocial people tending towards an antisocial activity activity in the first place, instead of the video-games-kill-people that most people assume…). i mean, to begin with there was a 20 year age difference in that marriage which says something, and they are the type of people that have the lack of conscience to have been on the run since SEPTEMBER. not normal internet addicts.

    i guess my point is that of course companies should take more responsibility, but at some point that responsibility ends. and technology isn’t what causes these kind of things… since i love korea like crazy, i hate to say something like this is possible, but i just don’t buy that comment on the other blog *cough* that i DM’ed you about the other day (Korea has internet addiction because Korea has fast internet). because a LOT of other countries have fast internet and aren’t pulling in the government to treat internet addiction. so do you think it’s possible there is something else about culture or society here that causes high rates of internet addiction? maybe huge unemployed youth percentage, maybe grueling work culture, maybe glorification of Starcraft on three different TV channels… who knows. but i feel like it’s a lot easier to understand a *human* phenomenon caused by culture, not caused by technology.

    one last thing: “This juxtaposition, of the murder case with the knowing production of a new addictive medium, with its prudent actuarial assumption that it will lead to a certain number of addictions, among them a certain number of broken lives, and, although perhaps nobody has the courage to predict it, a certain number of neglected children, and the subsequent attempt to quantify in monetary terms the company’s responsibility for the damage its product is expected do to society, really jarred me.”
    I agree. That sucks. But isn’t it what every company does every year? Isn’t that why Toyota is in trouble? I mean, if you can’t quantify life, can businesses still run? they might be able to make cars or planes or swiss army knives or god knows what else that it would be almost impossible for someone to die using, but at that point could anyone ever afford to use it? and at what point would modern society cease to function?

    anyway this comment was long and probably made no sense and i’m running on very little sleep right now so yeah. but i liked this post so i chose it to word-vomit on. it’s a compliment… really!

    • Sonia,

      Thanks for the thorough response. Let me get down to some of the things you said and give my quick off-the-cuff reaction, my ‘comment’, if you will.

      but as a gamer, i think people really do tend to villanize video games more than any other form of entertainment.

      I think this is owing to two facts. One is that gaming appeals largely to young people who should be spending their time more constructively. One of the articles linked by the link you provided talks about ‘7-11 gamers’ who are smart and could have made something of themselves but spent their formative years winning some digital armor or some other hopeless thing. The other key difference between games and other diversions is that they are inherently better forms of escapism than most other diversions because they benefit from a tremendous amount of money for research and development, they offer an open-ended product and they appeal to the senses in a way that other diversions (I hesitate to say ‘hobbies’ or ‘pastimes’) can’t. Prior to the creation of video games, the only equivalent interactive experience was playing games with other people. Most board games are not open-ended. RPGs added the open-ended aspect and created the first game addicts of the kind we know today, but it took so much effort to play the games that the phenomenon was necessarily not too widespread. Today anybody can fall prey to the lure of the endless quest from the comfort of their computer.

      do you think the case of game designers purposely making games addicting would fall under the same umbrella as not selling conflict diamonds, not polluting during the manufacture of popular foods, not engaging in whatever unethical business practice?

      The argument that I was edging towards in the post is that all arts and crafts fall in the same category. They can all be used for good or evil, intentional or unintentional. That’s why I ask if there should be a Hippocratic Oath for all arts.

      they were fucked up in the head to begin with and they happened to have video games as a hobby

      Agreed. But I think there are screwed up people and there are people with some degree of potential to be screwed up that may not have become screwed up had they not fallen into video games. Can we say, for example, that the two murderers definitely would have neglected their baby in the satisfaction of some other desire had they not been gamers? I suspect that there are plenty of people with the potential for debilitating addiction who don’t develop one for lack of access to a suitable object of addiction. I’m not willing to take this argument any further at this time though.

      i just don’t buy that comment on the other blog *cough* that i DM’ed you about the other day (Korea has internet addiction because Korea has fast internet).

      Interestingly, that is exactly the argument that Yunho Chung makes. I suspect that internet addiction will exist anywhere that the internet does, but that the level of internet addiction in each country will depend on a million factors, but that there will be a correlation between internet speed and number of internet addicts.

      i feel like it’s a lot easier to understand a *human* phenomenon caused by culture, not caused by technology.

      Good of you to remember that we are all of us humans, a fact too often forgotten by many expats.

  2. gr8 site thanks alot my friend bookmarkd!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: