2.2.2 Simulated killing

• Unlike real killing, simulated killing does not cause physical harm
• Desensitization to violence is a concern associated with simulated killing.


  True
• Simulated killing may contribute to the normalization of violence
• For what purpose is simulated killing used in military training?

  High-stakes scenario practice
• The moral status of simulated killing is a settled debate.

  False
• Moral objections to simulated killing are based on the lack of physical harm.

  False
• The moral status of simulated killing is universally agreed upon.

  False
• Simulated environments allow people to practice dangerous scenarios without real-world risks
• Match the argument in favor of simulated killing with its explanation:

  Training and Education ↔️ Prepares individuals for high-stakes situations

  Psychological Outlet ↔️ Provides a safe way to explore violent impulses

  Entertainment Value ↔️ Seen as artistic expression
• Simulated killing is used to train medical professionals in high-stakes situations
• Match the type of killing with its moral implication:

  Real Killing ↔️ Considered morally wrong

  Simulated Killing ↔️ Moral status debated
• Simulated killing is solely used for entertainment purposes.

  False
• Simulated environments reduce the risk of real-world consequences.
• Match the argument in favor of simulated killing with its explanation:

  Training and Education ↔️ Teaches high-stakes skills without real harm

  Reduced Risk ↔️ Allows practice in dangerous scenarios

  Psychological Outlet ↔️ Provides a safe way to explore impulses

  Entertainment Value ↔️ Many find it a legitimate form of art
• Moral objections to simulated killing arise from the virtual taking of a life.


  True
• The entertainment value of simulated killing is universally accepted.

  False
• Simulated killing is seen by many as a legitimate form of entertainment and artistic expression
• Match the argument against simulated killing with its explanation:

  Desensitization to Violence ↔️ Repeated exposure reduces empathy

  Psychological Harm ↔️ Increases aggression or anxiety
• Arrange the moral implications of real and simulated killing in terms of their severity:

  1️⃣ Real Killing: Harm to Living Beings ||| Causes physical injury or death

  2️⃣ Simulated Killing: No physical harm
• Match the case study with its ethical concern:

  Military Training Simulations ↔️ Desensitization to violence

  Medical Procedure Simulations ↔️ Psychological impact on participants

  Video Game Violence ↔️ Potential for increased aggression
• The moral implications of simulated killing are considered morally wrong by all.

  False
• In real killing, physical harm is caused, whereas simulated killing involves no physical harm
• What does simulated killing involve?

  Virtual taking of a life
• What is one key argument in favor of simulated killing?

  Training and education
• What psychological benefit may simulated killing provide for some individuals?

  Safe outlet for impulses
• What is one key argument against simulated killing?

  Desensitization to violence
• What is the primary concern regarding the psychological effects of simulated killing?

  Increased aggression or anxiety
• What psychological effect might repeated exposure to simulated killing cause?

  Reduced empathy
• Simulated killing in entertainment media may contribute to the normalization
• Real killing involves harm to living beings, whereas simulated killing causes no physical harm
• Simulated killing differs from real killing in that it does not involve physical harm
• Repeated exposure to simulated killing may reduce empathy towards real-world violence.

  True
• Simulated killing is universally accepted in all fields due to its practical uses.

  False
• While real killing causes physical injury, simulated killing causes no physical harm