Can Moral Sensitivity be Enhanced by Game Play?

The question of the title may seem senseless. Computer games presumably do not foster moral sensitivity. On the contrary, the player often takes the role of soldier, thief, monster etc. with the aim of winning at any cost. And yet, digital games carry great potentials for learning. The possibility to act and engage in virtual situations may be used in many other contexts with the aim of handling difficult moral dilemmas, in which the "practicing of goodness" may lead to understanding and empathy. The study seeks an answer to the question of the title by means of the game, Men and animals. Moral development of the young generation is recognized as a growing problem by western countries. As the lives of young people are characterized by moral ambivalence, and competing moral discourses, values seem to be increasingly uncertain and fragmented. Researchers describe such morality as "situational" in contrast to rule based moral values. To develop a more coherent and reflected morality, people have to meet, discuss, and act in a variety of complex situation, leading to deepened "moral sensitivity". The digital game Men and animals was developed to meet such demands. Embedded in a narrative, the game presents the students to authentic dilemmas that can be "solved" in more than one way. The solutions represent different moral values. The game is played in pairs allowing for discussion. To solve the dilemmas a range of opinions and information is presented. The game can be played several times allowing students to test the consequences of polar value positions. Playing takes 45 minutes. Effects and experiences of playing the game was studied involving 100 students aged 16-19. By interviews and a questionnaire students' moral reasoning was tested in various situations before and after playing the game. Observation of players' discussions and arguments while playing was included. The choices made by each pair were registered and positioned on a scale from "Absolute animal rights" to "Animals have no rights at all". At the end of the play students saw all their choices, and were invited to reflect on them in relation to the value scale. This gave room for reflection on the situational character of the choices, which for most pairs mirrored an ambivalent moral position. A majority of the students experienced the continuous demand for decision-making as highly engaging - and difficult. The game made the students question their initial general idea of the relations between men and animals. Before playing, a majority ascribed the same value to animals as to men. Having played, students' decisions became more relational and situational, mirroring a more reflected position. Students themselves commented on the problem of understanding the moral components of a dilemma, as well as their own position. They articulated a feeling of not having thought of such things in depth, and interest in playing more games that challenged their presumptions