Moral Complexity in Videogames: A Pragmatist Approach

Hanussek's paper proposes "moral complexity" as a pragmatic, bottom-up analytic and design construct for understanding how videogames implement moral content. Moral complexity is defined as the degree to which a game offers alternatives to violence and deceit, together with critical commentary that frames those acts. The author argues that prior videogame ethics research has been too abstract, and that treating morality as a game design element better captures the closed-simulation experience of players than importing real-world ethical frameworks directly into virtual spaces.

The theoretical foundation draws on Aristotelian eudaimonia, Csikszentmihalyi's concept of flow, and Habermas's communicative action. The central finding is that games offering more alternatives and commentary generate more frequent moral experiences, because these align with players' pursuit of happiness, absorbing self-rewarding challenge, and reflective understanding. To illustrate the framework, the paper proposes a three-level scale of low, medium, and high moral complexity, applied to Grand Theft Auto V (low), Spec Ops: The Line (medium), and Detroit: Become Human (high). The strongest moral complexity emerges where games present genuine dilemmas between violent or deceitful options and peaceful or honest ones.

The paper's scope is confined to single-player videogames and to a narrow conception of morality centred on physical violence and deceit. It explicitly excludes multiplayer emergent encounters and does not resolve self-defence cases, limitations the author acknowledges. The framework is presented as applicable across genres and useful for detecting, discussing, and designing moral encounters, but as conservative and in need of further refinement. Its closing reference list draws on literature concerning game-related aggression, the ethics of play, educational applications of games, and game design ethics.