Moral Disagreement on the Issue of Gamergate
Gamergate is a controversy between video game fans that are in disagreement with the ethics in gaming. In other words, Gamergate is an internet culture war. The reasonable and measured debate mainly focuses on issues about progressivism and sexism in the culture of video games. It involves two sides, one side is mostly women who are independent game developers and media critics, and they advocate for better and more significant inclusion in the gaming culture. The other side includes an alliance of trolls, misogynists and anti-feminists. These people are mostly men that believe they are being manipulated by a corrupt press (VanDerWerff & Todd). They simply do not want any adjustments to their games. Therefore I think that this culture clash is bound to end in disagreement because they are focusing their energy on inflicting conflict rather than trying to create an understanding.
The story about Gamergate began when Zoe Quinn, a renowned game developer, and Anita Sarkeesian, a media critic were subjected to online harassment. The harassments were later submitted to Jenn Frank, who is an award-winning games journalist as well as Mattie Brice, a writer. After the incident, both Jenn and Mattie refrained from gaming activities. The other group argues in terms of ethics. They believe the left-learning and the gaming press are manipulating them (Dewey). They say that a lot of focus is being put on the harassment matter, which therefore distracts the whole agenda.
The agenda, according to the Gamegaters, is that online gaming press and indie game makers are becoming too cozy. A significant number of them believe that the online gaming press is putting more attention on feminism, and the role of women is extensively represented in the industry to the extent that they are affecting the coverage of games. The situation escalated when programmer Eron Gjoni a former boyfriend to Quinn, wrote a blog condemning her of infidelity. Eron accused Quinn of sleeping with Nathan Grayson, who is a writer for Kotaku, an influential games website (Dewey). In summation, the incident has become a ground for a series of heated arguments and debates on matters concerning journalist integrity, feminism, and sexual harassment.
In chapter 4 of Cosmopolitanism (Ethics in a world of strangers), the author Appiah talks about moral disagreements. He mainly concentrates on the argument about values and classifies them into three different categories. He mentions that we may not share a vocabulary of evaluation; we may give the same vocabulary different interpretations, and also we may give the same values different weights. Appiah emphasizes that each of these issues is likely to occur if the discussion involves individuals from different societies (Appiah, 49). Everywhere in this world, people perceive values differently. Through different cultures and beliefs, people can mold values in different ways. This means that we can never agree on one particular issue. Appiah acknowledges that values are “open-textured” and “contestable,” therefore, they vary depending on what a person believes or where they come from.
Sharing a common vocabulary does not mean that we will all agree. Appiah emphasizes that it is hard to define value. For instance, he uses the example of being polite. He argues that we may all know what the term means, but that does not mean we will not disagree when politeness is in the display. According to Appiah, politeness is a value word derived from the collection of manners, which in most cases, we consider to be less severe than morals. However, this kind of controversy also applies to basic ethical terms like brave and also to moral ones like cruel. In this case, Appiah classifies words like courage and cruelty, which signify virtues and vices as open textured (Appiah, 44). This means that two individuals may know what they say but end up disagreeing on whether to apply it in a particular case.
I think that this classification fits with the case of Gamergate. For instance, the attacks on Quinn and Anita by the gamers may have felt like a good thing to others and inappropriate to some. Universally what may be deemed as right or wrong varies in every society. To some, these may feel like a concept of being courageous, while to others, it may be perceived as an act of being rude. Some people may view the trolls and feminists as brave individuals who put at stake their freedom to condemn the act of infidelity and corruption in the gaming industry. However, others may feel it is an act of rudeness that Gamegaters are invading the privacy of other people and using sexual harassment in the name of advocating for their rights (Dewey). Such disagreements invoke a concept that the other party does not agree with. Therefore the intention of Gamegaters is not to make the public and the gaming management agree with them but rather make them understand their basis of argument.
We may share the same vocabulary but give it a different interpretation. For instance, since values are open texture, they can be subject to various interpretations. Hence, they are not concrete. Moreover, values are contestable; this means that they can be reasonably debated upon. Therefore, this explains that values can universally be understood, but they cannot be universally agreed upon in all perspectives (Appiah, 40). To me, the subject of interpretation does not fit with the case of Gamegater because it was a one-sided affair, and the victims were not able to react to the trolls. Most of the offenders operated anonymously, leaving no trace of who they were and the culture they were from.
We may share a common value vocabulary and also agree on how to apply it in various cases; however, we may disagree on the amount of weight to give the values. Values can be compared to a box of happiness (Appiah, 47). The box of happiness may have joy written on it such that everyone understands happiness exists in it. However, when we open the box, what we find may not create happiness for all of us. This means that we all understand what happiness is and probably know what it feels like; however, what makes us happy or triggers happiness in us is different to everyone.
This category of moral disagreements fits with the case of Gamergate. For instance, in the case of Eron and Quinn, Eron feels that it is a taboo for her girlfriend to sleep with another man, and that’s why he goes ahead to troll and condemn her. This is a version of taboo found in many cultures across the world (VanDerWerff & Todd). Those who believe in it feel that it is a taboo for a woman to have sexual intercourse with another man apart from his husband. Appiah highlights that all of these acts are forbidden in the holiness code. Such definitions of taboo can lead to considerable disagreement because not every part of the world acknowledges them.
Based on the analysis, I do not think there will be an agreement between the two sides, and therefore they are bound to end in disagreement. Since both parties are inflicting conflict rather than coming up with an understanding, the end result of such disputes is that the situation is probably going to escalate. More cases of privacy invasion, feminism, and sexual harassment are expected (Aghazadeh et al., 180). However, despite our moral disagreement, we can continue to live together in harmony if we keep in mind Appiah’s practice of how to agree. In chapter 5 of Cosmopolitanism, Appiah talks about the primacy of practice. Here he majors on local agreements, changing our mind and fighting for the good.
In summation, Kwame Appiah mainly focuses on the social and ethical questions that originate where different cultures collide in this dwindling world. As a result, he proposes cosmopolitanism as a solution. Cosmopolitanism means that we are morally obligated to all persons, including those outside our community. Appiah believes that these duties are rooted in objective, universal values. Moreover, Appiah classifies these values into three categories. He mentions we may not share a vocabulary of evaluation; we may give the same vocabulary different interpretations, and also we may give the same values different weights. He adds that each of these issues is likely to occur if the discussion involves individuals from different societies.
Work Cited
Aghazadeh, Sarah A., et al. “GamerGate: A case study in online harassment.” Online harassment. Springer, Cham, 2018. 179-207.
Appiah, Kwame. “A.(2006).” Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers.
Dewey, Caitlin. “The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read.” The Washington Post 14 (2014).
VanDerWerff, Todd. “# Gamergate: Here’s Why Everybody in the Video Game World Is Fighting.” (2014).