Moral Questions: The ethical implications of virtual actions in video games, specifically comparing virtual murder and virtual paedophilia.
Standard Responses: Many argue virtual actions are permissible because they cause no actual harm, leading to moral distinctions questioned in this analysis.
Virtual Murder vs. Virtual Paedophilia
Definitions:
Virtual Murder: Directing a character to kill another in a game in a manner that would constitute actual murder in a real environment.
Virtual Paedophilia: Directing a character to molest another in situations that would constitute actual child molestation.
Common Perceptions: Murder is generally accepted in gaming, whereas paedophilia evokes strong moral outrage.
The Dilemma Faced by Gamers
Moral Distinction: Players must reconcile their intuitions about virtual murder and virtual paedophilia, necessitating an argument for how they differ ethically.
Five Arguments Examined
Argument 1: Social Acceptability
Overview: Virtual murder is socially acceptable; virtual paedophilia is taboo.
Critique: The morality of an act shouldn't be based solely on social norms, as history shows misalignment between social acceptability and morality (e.g., slavery).
Argument 2: Significant Likelihoods
Premise: Virtual actions could lead to real-life behaviors; paedophilia may have a higher correlation with actual crime than murder does.
Consequentialism: Acts likely to result in harm are considered immoral.
Challenges: Need evidence to support claims about the likelihood of virtual transactions leading to actual crimes. Some propose virtual paedophilia might lessen real harm by providing an outlet for urges.
Argument 3: Enjoyment of the Act
Self-Harm Perspective: Engaging in virtual paedophilia may indicate a problematic enjoyment of paedophilia itself.
Contrasting with Murder: Enjoyment in games may derive from competition rather than the act of killing; thus, murder might not cause the same self-harm.
Counter-example: Players may engage in acts not directly related to the game's goals for enjoyment in both types of scenarios.
Argument 4: Singling Out Groups
Argument: Paedophilia unfairly targets children, making it more harmful than murder.
Critique: The harm comparison might not be straightforward; random murder of any group could be similarly problematic.
Argument 5: The Special Status of Children
Premise: Children possess unique vulnerabilities, making harm to them more severe than harm to adults.
Limitations: Claims about the severity of child harm need careful examination to avoid exaggeration and must not imply moral hierarchy between molestation and murder
Concluding Thoughts
None of the arguments conclusively differentiate virtual acts of murder from virtual acts of paedophilia.
Final Reflection: If no adequate moral distinction exists, players may need to recognize both actions as morally permissible or prohibited. This analysis raises broader questions about moral responsibility in various forms of media.
Implications for Entertainment
The discussion extends beyond gaming, affecting perceptions of violence and morality in films and other virtual representations.
Addressing the potential hypocrisy in moral judgments on entertainment consumption.