Making real choices in a virtual world
Note: This is the second of two papers on similar themes. (Read the first here.) I wrote both in the second year of my MA in English at Bob Jones University, the fundamentalist Christian school I attended for my BA and MA. Both capture well the moral tenor of my upbringing and of my beliefs at that time. I was raised in evangelicalism and on a diet of Rush Limbaugh. But since that time and these writings, some of my views have changed in important ways. At the time I wrote this paper, the term “sexual preference” was still commonly used throughout society to refer to a person’s sexual orientation, and it would be ten more years before reading Andrew Sullivan opened my eyes to the reality of sexual orientation as an innate characteristic of a person rather than a preference chosen willfully. This piece mischaracterizes that reality completely in ways that are homophobic. Very strong condemnatory language about sin was common in my sphere and vocabulary then (and for some time afterwards), and I believed the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual behavior is sin. For that reason, this paper will no doubt be offensive to some readers. Although I no longer think or speak of homosexuality in the homophobic terms I used here, there’s no doubt that I did for a long time. This piece is a reflection of that fact about my past. In regards to the piece more broadly, some of the core philosophical thesis still resonates with me. I still believe America suffers the social effects and disruption that come from lack of a shared moral center or objective foundation for shared morality–we have spent decades growing increasingly divided over morality. But I’m no longer certain to what extent such an objective foundation exists or how to find it if it does, and lacking that certainty, I find it harder to be a moral dogmatist on many matters, not only sexuality. In addition, having been thoroughly disillusioned by many right-wing sex scandals since and also more historically informed, I no longer see Bill Clinton as uniquely bad in his behavior or the GOP as ingenuous in its moral outrage. But for the record, I still think he abused his power in immoral ways and that Esquire’s cover photo was an inappropriate, sly celebration of his ‘prowess.’ As a side note, after researching for this paper, one of the dean of men’s staff confronted me about my late-night Internet searches on my work computer that were apparently related to homosexuality in some way. Looking back, amusing, but awkward at the time. (DL, Sept. 18, 2021)
Perversity is acceptable in America; it’s the new freedom. Our honorable President has underscored this sobering reality yet again with his cover appearance on the December issue of Esquire magazine (a glossy purveyor of trendy American hedonism). The photo has been unofficially titled “Monica’s View,” and as incredible as it would have seemed to me two days ago, Clinton has indeed suavely offered his crotch to the American people.
This latest Clinton obscenity is deeply disturbing to me. But even more disturbing are the societal attitudes that accept such appalling behavior. Clinton faces no serious repercussions for this in-your-face declaration of moral independence. Eight years of brazen incontinence haven’t brought him lasting censure. Why should it start now? America isn’t interested in censuring his loose behavior because any serious censure of Bill Clinton would be an oblique censure of the American public. It’s a harsh statement, but it’s easily demonstrable.
America has cast aside objective morality. The two major moral hot buttons in the last two decades clearly illustrate the national trend towards moral relativism. Roe v. Wade in 1972 established a woman’s “right to choose,” and the homosexual movement that hit the cultural mainstream in the 1990s preaches individual sexual “preference.” Both “choice” and “preference” assume an individual moral standard that isn’t accountable to anything big, permanent, and objective—God for example. The case is further illustrated by the latest in virtual reality entertainment.
Earlier this year, video-game maker Electronic Arts introduced The Sims. The game is an experience in player-guided virtual voyeurism. Players are given the chance to create and micro-manage a virtual “family.” They design characters (choosing everything from appearance to personality) and guide them through their daily lives. Social behavior, work habits, even personal hygiene are all governed by the player.
A quick trip to the official EA Sims website reveals the kinds of fantasy worlds Americans are creating with their new electronic God powers. The site offers, among other things, a place where players can post sim “photo albums” they have created by collecting screen shots and writing a story to go with them. There are over 16,000 of these novellas categorized under headings like “family,” “adventure,” and “romance.” They show how one of the most popular video games of the year is being played.
A search of the Romance category brings back (at the head of the list) the DeYoung family romance, “a gay man’s search for love.” The promiscuity is typical of many of the postings, and although some are more traditional in their “preference,” it is not a coincidence that the game so easily lends itself to the realization of aberrant moral paradigms. Will Wright, the game’s designer, stated his goals clearly in a recent interview, “The idea that each game is . . . a reflection of the player’s value system appeals strongly to me.” So conscientious players can choose a heterosexual path for their sims, but as far as the game is concerned, that choice isn’t better; it’s just different. This kind of consumer-level moral relativism is exactly the kind of thing that makes it possible for Bill Clinton to do what he does.
And unfortunately, those who know better play along. Thinking people realize that the common acceptance of moral relativism can ultimately lead to Hitleresque atrocities, but instead of attacking the philosophy, moral objectivists (a.k.a. Christians) try to clean up behavior on other grounds. They attack promiscuous sex because it fosters disease. They attack drugs because they raise crime rates. They attack homosexuality because it threatens the sanctity of traditional norms. But these pragmatic arguments give in on the real issue, the issue of moral absolutes.
The moral battle raging in America can never be won until the idea that some things are wrong in themselves again becomes a part of the national mindset. But such a change of thinking can’t happen unless the idea is pushed. And the idea can’t be pushed on an abstract level. It’s not enough to say “somewhere there’s a standard;” the argument has to be, “somewhere there’s a standard, and here it is.” The question then arises, at what point do Christian’s begin to recognize preaching as a necessary form of political dialogue?