It being Advent, I find myself moved once more to muse upon matters philosophical, examining the Eight Virtues of the Ultima series and comparing these against real-world philosophy and theology. This year, I’d like to focus on the Virtue of Justice, which I don’t think I’ve given much attention to in years past.

Listen to the Episode

If you’ve followed the news surrounding the controversies that have erupted in the video games press (and in the industry in general) over the last couple of years, you’ve probably encountered the term social justice (or the pejorative term social justice warrior, sometimes shortened to SJW) at some point. You’ve probably also encountered the concept of social justice if you’ve been involved with the mainline Christian churches since at least the year 2000. The idea of social justice — society’s obligation to provide the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation — is not a new one, but it has become a hot-button term for gamers.

But what is social justice?

The definition of social justice that I employed just a minute ago is taken from paragraph 1928 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the preface to a very lengthy section that discusses just what social justice entails. It is very much in line with the Thomist view of justice, and in some respects can be thought of as being comprised of several examples of what Aristotle would have termed special justice (that is: the exercise of specific virtues, and then in a way that seeks to ensure that all receive what is their due in areas such as goods, property, rights, and/or political power).

At the core of this view of social justice is the understanding that the dignity of the human person is the ultimate end of society. “Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that ‘everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.’ No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a ‘neighbor,’ a brother.”

Several key categories are distinguished in which social justice obtains. These include human rights, respect for the rights of others, the removal of discrimination, addressing unequal distribution and sinful inequalities (although it should be noted that not all inequalities are sinful or otherwise tinged with evil), and the need for (and requirements of) human solidarity.

A lot of the debate about social justice, as it pertains to video games, is caught up on one of these categories in particular: the removal of discrimination (e.g. by calling for certain forms of content, certain depictions of persons, and/or certain modes of play to be removed from games). As articulated in the Catechism, this end goal of social justice is pretty unwavering: “Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.”

I think that a lot of the controversy surrounding social justice in video games, however, comes from the fact that the idea of human solidarity seems to get lost in the debates, arguments, and Twitter mobs that characterize it. “The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of ‘friendship’ or ‘social charity,’ is a direct demand of human…brotherhood.

…

Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.”

And I think that’s where, to my mind, the contingent arguing for social justice in video games parts ways with genuine social justice in favour of a far more unsavoury thing: mob justice, which isn’t really justice at all. Because instead of operating from within a framework of solidarity with an eye toward reducing tensions and conflicts with negotiation and charity, we see the formation of Twitter mobs that seek to censor and even chase people out of their places of work, either by getting them fired or by trying to make it so difficult to remain effective in their position that resignation seems the most effective option. Whatever that is, it isn’t justice, and in particular it isn’t social justice; the person who is on the receiving end of the mob is still a human person, and is still due the respect that flow from his dignity as a creature, which includes the right of economic initiative: “everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor.”

It’s a strange thing that is happening in games these days. The call to view video games as art has been getting steadily louder over the last few years; that has been an interesting discussion to follow. And a part of art is to challenge us — our beliefs, our feelings, and even our sensibilities. (Another part of art is to celebrate those self same things, it should be noted.) So if we are going to assert that video games are art, we should be prepared to accept that within games we will encounter certain forms of content, certain depictions of persons, and even certain gameplay elements which make us uncomfortable.

And if — this part I really can’t stress enough — if we do find ourselves confronted by this sort of thing, it’s not the case that we can’t criticize it and it’s not that we can’t question why that content was included in a game…but it is the case that in those situations, and indeed in every situation in which someone does something that we find to be unpalatable or in questionable taste, we still have to keep the human dignity of the other first and foremost in mind. That means no death threats, no doxxing, no calling for people to lose their jobs or be exorcised from groups they are members of. Because that’s not justice; it isn’t born of virtue, and it doesn’t have the dignity of any person as its ultimate end.

“A more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.” That’s what we should aim to create as we strive for genuine social justice. We aren’t there yet, however.