Moral ambiguity makes a defining mark in BioShock

Wrong, I've never been really sure about. Necessary, maybe, but I also think that's maybe my bullshit cop out excuse when I'm confronted with any real ambiguity in a given situation. Presented with a situation that's unclear, I tend to choose whatever option most immediately likely to benefit me and, rather wormily, doesn't make me look like the bad guy. I mean, honestly, I think I based my choice to rescue the Little Sisters more on Tanenbaum watching me than anything else. Strange, for a game, that I didn't want a piece of code to think ill of me. I don't know what I would've done had I felt no one was watching.

But. That wasn't your question. I don't think it's possible to know whether or not killing something evil is wrong until you've, well, killed it. You when it breaks you.

...*know* when it breaks you.

I've got to start proofreading my writing.

I am one of the few people who have neither an Xbox360 nor a computer capable of playing Bioshock (I'll leave my nerd badge at the door) so I may just be talking out of my ass here, but perhaps the issue isn't "is it wrong to kill something that's clearly evil?" so much as it is "is it wrong for YOU to kill something that's clearly evil?" What gives me personal justification to punish another, even if they deserve it? Suppose you were the one who had to throw the switch or administer the lethal injection to a criminal. Even if this person had committed horrible crimes, could you really do it? I imagine that many people can say yes to this scenario while it is still an abstraction, but if you were really there, standing next to this person and looking them in the eye, could you do it without any hesitation? That a video game can stimulate this visceral response indicates how wonderfully immersive the game is and I think it really helps the argument that video games are art.

I'm so glad to see this point being made here. Every other posting I've seen regarding the moral ambiguity of this game pertains to harvesting the Little Sisters.

I'll admit that they are the obvious potential victims, but what about the Big Daddys? Are they somehow less innocent because they do not have visible faces, and are large and ugly? What kind of reasoning supports killing them, when they are among the few creatures in this game that go around their business peacefully without attacking you, the "hero"?

Anyone who trivializes this situation needs to take a close look at the Stanley Milgram Experiments because this predicament is very similar to what we are being faced with in this game. A voice of authority says that we must go about harvesting Little Sisters, and we apparently must if we are to make any progress in this place. Even if that means pre-emptively attacking innocent nameless beings in heavy suits. Their corpses are identified somewhat ironically as Rosie, as in "Rosie the Riveter".

How different than that is pushing the button to launch a missile or drop a bomb? It's easy to say it's only a game. It's also a simulation, and people are trained for actual combat on software that isn't nearly as sophisticated.