Ratings and Media Choices

Our media choices affect the spirit we carry with us on a personal level. Perhaps even more importantly, they affect the spirit that can and will be present in the home wherein we make them. I submit these premises at the outset, appealing to my own experience for evidence of their truth.

I broach the subject only to point out two apparent incongruities in both my own choices and my friends' choices.

First: we avoid rated R movies to comply with prophetic counsel (well, some of us do). However, especially in the realm of comedy, many movies that are not rated R are, morally, significantly worse than most rated R movies I have seen. To take a metaphor, mirth acts as a lubricant: with it, we are willing to let a lot more slide than we otherwise would. Humor is just one of several considerations leading to the result that sometimes actions don't match up with intentions in media choices.

Second: We actively and carefully avoid sexual content in movies and games. As we have been warned against pornography, so we avoid it. This is good and proper. However, while we are careful against the temptation to misuse or be too casual with our power to grant life, we are not so careful to avoid becoming too casual about the power to take it. For example:



We like this game. Yet I don't see how, even granting that movies/games that remind us to fight evil are good to some extent, it's proper to seek after things like this.

These incongruities lead to my question: how can I change my taste so as to improve my media choices, thereby improving the spirit I carry with me?

Unmasking an (im)poster

So Damien always brings up interesting things on his blog. Recently he posted about situational ethics. I wondered about his position and a small conversation has ensued. Here's his latest:

"On my post, With All Your Getting, Get Understanding, B. Zeller sought a clarification of my belief in not making decisions until I must:

'Also, just to give a counterpoint, how similar is not carrying around convictions to not deciding whether or not to drink until someone offers you a beer?'

My position is not just similar to your example, that is exactly what I'm saying. I think that creating blanket statements (I will never do x or y) is a bad idea. Here's how my decision-making philosophy works: I gather obligations/devotions/desires through the course of life and when it comes time to decide, I weigh them against each other."

And I decided I'd like to have the glory of posting a reply on my own blog rather than on his comments. So here we go.

I guess I'm not too sure we disagree here; the argument may be simply semantic.

You call the religious obligation a consideration--one of many that enters into any decision. But how is that different from a conviction you carry around? After all, aren't your religious obligations based on a conviction you carry around?

If people have "pre-made" a decision not to drink, isn't that just a very strong consideration--one of many--when the moment of decision actually comes? Their having "pre-made" the decision doesn't destroy any other considerations, it simply strengthens the religious obligation.

I see how you're arguing for open-mindedness here, I'm just not sure that "pre-making" decisions in the way you describe is as closed-minded as one might think.