Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 71–79 | Cite as

Why unreal punishments in response to unreal crimes might actually be a really good thing

Original Paper

Abstract

In this article I explore ways to argue about punishment of personal representations in virtual reality. I will defend the idea that such punishing might sometimes be morally required. I offer four different lines of argument: one consequentialistic, one appealing to an idea of appropriateness, one using the notion of organic wholes, and one starting from a supposed inability to determine the limits of the extension of the moral agent. I conclude that all four approaches could, in some cases, justify punishing a virtual reality representation; an avatar. As a consequence of my conclusion, I suggest that our institutionalized criminal justice system must be broadened in scope and punitive measures, in order to cover the new and difficult cases arising in virtual reality.

Keywords

Avatars Ethics in virtual reality Extended agents Punishment Retributive justice Virtual reality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to several people, only some of who I list here. In particular, I am indebted to Göran Collste, Bo Petersson and Martin Andersson, who all gave valuable comments on the article at some stage of its development. Also, the article benefited considerably by the comments of the journal’s anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Brey, P. (1999). The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 5–14.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dibbell, J. A Rape in cyberspace: How an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database in to a society. The Village Voice. December 23, 1993. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle_vv.html.
  4. Durose, M. R., & Langan, P. A. (2007). Felony sentences in state courts, 2004. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  5. Glantz, K., Rizzo, A., & Graap, K. (2003). Virtual reality for psychotherapy: Current reality and future possibilities. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40(1/2), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jessica, Wolfendale. (2007). My avatar, my self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(2), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael, Walzer. (1987). Interpretation and social criticism. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Moore, G. E. (2004). Principia Ethica. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  9. Theatre and democracy in second life. (2007). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/30/miles_from_broadway/.
  10. Utz, S. (2003). Social identification and interpersonal attraction in MUDs. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Walsh, T. Hidden virtual-world prison revealed. January 3, 2006. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://secretlair.com/index.php?/clickableculture/entry/hidden_virtual_world_prison_revealed/.
  12. Warning, Suspension, Banishment. (2008). Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php.
  13. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and CommunicationsLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations