Killing in the “Game” Of: Ethics in the Virtual World
David Chalmers (2022). Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. W.W. Norton (book).
Trigger Warning: mentions of potentially unsettling acts.
S. Hussain Ather is a Google Summer of Code scholar.
In “Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy,” Philosopher David Chalmers discusses ethical and moral issues related to the use of online avatars to engage in behavior normally considered immoral. These behaviors include murder, rape, and pedophilia. While these examples present the most egregious cases, some people worry that in general video games and virtual environments give permission to engage in immoral behaviors. What sort of basis for ethical and moral behavioral might exist in virtual worlds?
Chalmers argues that in the next few decades, the fidelity and immersion offered by virtual reality (VR) will achieve parity with the real world. Augmented reality (AR) headsets allow for a mixed virtual and physical representation and will similarly advance in sophistication. It is even possible that with further technological advances, so-called “black mirror” technologies such as computers and smartphones could be replaced by virtual worlds.
“We cannot know whether or not we’re in a simulation”
Providing a broad perspective that draws upon ideas from many different disciplines, Chalmers raises myriad questions pertaining to the type of world that results from extensive and prolonged interaction with the virtual world. The resulting merger of physical and virtual experience, or “Reality+”, is particularly relevant to the domain of ethics.
As but one example, Chalmers goes over several experiences one may find absolutely unimaginable in everyday life that video games have enabled. Video game design has not shied away from representing unthinkable actions as part of gameplay. Examples include the 1982 game Custer’s Revenge for the Atari 2600 video game console. In this game, the player controls a man sexually assaulting a Native American woman. Similarly, the 2002 video game Ethnic Cleansing in which one plays as a white supremacist trying to kill members of minority groups. More generally, there has been a lack of consideration regarding what role ethics or morals might play in virtual world interactions.
But the extreme examples discussed here represent a very small group of individuals. It may be somewhat rare to find someone who would be comfortable playing a video game involving rape. Games with gratuitous violence, on the other hand, are much more common and have a larger audience. This raises an interesting question: why is virtual rape taboo, but virtual murder more acceptable? And this leads us to an even more interesting question: why are player’s social norms in the virtual world inconsistent with those of their physical world?
While normative inconsistency is partially a matter of technological platforms lacking in social responsibility [1], or a matter of historical context making virtual activities pointedly realistic [2], these examples also suggest that our morals and ethics are simply different in the virtual world. While we may not experience quite the same psychological or emotional response to sexual assault in a virtual environment, the moral and ethical dimensions are a separate matter. Exploring the sort of moral revulsion of sexual assault and pedophilia, as they invoke reactions inside ourselves, at least, gives us grounds for determining what form of virtue ethics may be relevant to the discussions of actions in virtual worlds.
The effects of such behaviors in virtual worlds on our subsequent behavior (virtual or real) may also be worth considering from this perspective. Not all potentially amoral behaviors are equal: while violence in video games doesn’t truly equate to violence in the real world, virtual forms of inappropriate sex acts might, in some ways, entice us to engage in those acts in real life. It would not be a stretch to say that virtual worlds are an unknown frontier of ethics and moral behaviors. According to Chalmers, we must base ethical decision-making in the virtual world based on what sort of effect they have on us in the real world.
Yet this ignores the obvious differences between the virtual and physical worlds. For example, we might consider virtual worlds to be a refuge that does not interact with or influence behavior in the real world. This would allow people to indulge in non-consensual pleasures in a virtual world while also having no effect on the well-being of others. In fact, as virtual activities provide an outlet for engaging with socially unacceptable behaviors in a way that does not directly hurt people, they may actually prevent such actions from being exercised in real life.
An example of this is found in Grand Theft Auto, where players commit acts in the game that might be unthinkable to commit in real life. As a counterpoint, you can actually complete the game without engaging in most criminal activities like murder, stealing, and misogyny. One might even argue that it’s up to the player’s discretion whether they engage in the immoral activity of the virtual world.
Are the immoral actions, then, more of a statement on the player themselves who chooses to engage in them? Chalmers might argue yes. But regardless of how experiences in the virtual world are expressed (or not expressed) in the real world, Chalmers forces us to re-evaluate our understanding of ethics in light of these novel forms of human behavior and social interaction.
We can also take an entirely different approach to action in virtual worlds by knowing that simulated characters (or avatars) and avatars may respond differently based on our own moral actions and behaviors. Consider what might be at stake when dealing with murder in a video game. What if the other characters were sentient in a manner similar to humans? Do they know that you’re going around murdering them? Knowing that there are characters in the game well aware of their situation while also responding in accordance with your own actions forces you to adopt an objective ethical framework similar to that of the real world.
What other approaches to ethics might the characters in the game take? One useful design feature might encourage characters to take a virtue-based ethics approach. Virtue-based ethics involves considering what things should be done to produce virtuous outcomes or at least outcomes in that are in accordance with virtues. The characters could exhibit emotions and passions like we do and can respond accordingly. Allowing for a diversity of interactions with fellow avatars allows a player (through their avatar) to gain practical wisdom, and, as an Aristotelian might say, enable an understanding of how to be a virtuous person.
In a simulated video game, it might appear as though there can’t be any objective source of knowledge, but as characters behave with one another, they still perceive practical experience and wisdom of what has happened, and, from that, they can see what might happen. In this sense, a virtue-based ethics approach would appropriately describe our fictional realities. But what about other ethical frameworks? Would a utilitarian framework help us understand how characters behave? Let’s take the utilitarian notion that we should do what maximizes happiness for the largest number of people. The game would make it clear we should only kill out of necessity (e.g., self-defense), and never just because we can. Killing unnecessarily might cause characters to distrust and show vices towards you, leading to less happiness for you and others in a way that ensures the best possible shared future.
But any ethical framework we choose in turn has its own issues. How could characters have knowledge of their own future upon which to compare what happens? They have no free will, no motives, and no reasons for doing anything other than the fact that the protagonist has made one decision or another. Since most characters act without knowledge of the outside world (or knowledge that they’re in a computer simulation), they have no way of determining what’s going to happen for themselves or what might happen, it’s up to the player to decide their fate.
References:
[1] Campbell, C. (2014). Grand Theft Auto 5’s misogyny is a problem its creators must finally address. Polygon, December 10.
[2] Kroes, M.C.W., Dunsmoor, J.E., Mackey, W.E., McClay, M., and Phelps, E.A. (2017). Context conditioning in humans using commercially available immersive Virtual Reality. Scientific Reports, 7, 8640.
