Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 255–265 | Cite as

Virtual worlds and moral evaluation

  • Jeff Dunn
Original Paper


Consider the multi-user virtual worlds of online games such as EVE and World of Warcraft, or the multi-user virtual world of Second Life. Suppose a player performs an action in one of these worlds, via his or her virtual character, which would be wrong, if the virtual world were real. What is the moral status of this virtual action? In this paper I consider arguments for and against the Asymmetry Thesis: the thesis that such virtual actions are never wrong. I also explain how the truth of the Asymmetry Thesis is closely aligned with the possibility of what Edward Castronova has called closed synthetic worlds. With some qualifications, the ultimate conclusion is that the Asymmetry Thesis is false and that these closed worlds are impossible.


Virtual Virtual actions Virtual worlds Consent Video games Closed world Play 



Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Ethical Inquiry Through Video Game Play and Design at DePauw University, and at the 6th International Conference on the Philosophy of Computer Games in Madrid, Spain. Thanks to the participants of both conferences for helpful comments. Thanks also to Erik Wielenberg, Marcia McKelligan, and the members of the DePauw University Ethics Bowl team for discussion and comments. I also thank two anonymous reviewers for this journal.


  1. Athanassoulis, N. (2002). The role of consent in sado-masochistic practices. Research Publications, 8, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachman, R. (1983). The running man. New York: Signet Books.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, C., & Froomkin, A. (2004). Virtual worlds, real rules. New York Law School Law Review, 49, 103–146.Google Scholar
  4. Brandt, R. B. (1979). A theory of the good and the right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brey, P. (1999). The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality. Ethics and Information Technology, 1, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castronova, E. (2004). The right to play. New York Law School Law Review, 49, 185–210.Google Scholar
  7. Castronova, E. (2005, December 24). The Horde is Evil. Terra Nova [Weblog]. from Retrieved 4 June 2012.
  8. Community Standards. (n.d.). Second Life. Retrieved from 18 June 2012.
  9. Craft, A. (2007). Sin in cyber-eden: Understanding the metaphysics and morals of virtual worlds. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Driver, J. (2007). Dream immorality. Philosophy, 82, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EVE Online [computer software]. (2003). CCP.Google Scholar
  12. Fairfield, J. (2005). Virtual property. Boston University Law Review, 85, 1047–1102.Google Scholar
  13. Francis, T. (2005). Murder incorporated (pp. 126–129). UK: PC Gamer.Google Scholar
  14. Gooskens, G. (2010). The ethical status of virtual actions. Ethical Perspectives, 17, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal code, real world: A rule-consequentialist theory of morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-elements in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hunter, D., & Lastowka, G. (2004). Virtual crimes. New York Law School Law Review, 49, 211–229.Google Scholar
  18. Hurd, H. (1996). The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory, 2, 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson, M. (2009). Why unreal punishments in response to unreal crimes might actually be a really good thing. Ethics and Information Technology, 11, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kant, I. (1996) The Metaphysics of Morals, Mary Gregor (trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kerr, O. (2008). Criminal law in virtual worlds. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 415.Google Scholar
  22. Lamorisse, A. (1957). Risk [board game], Parker Brothers.Google Scholar
  23. Lander, M. (2003, December 26). Kassel Journal; Eating people is wrong! But is it homicide? Court to rule. New York Times. from Retrieved 8 Dec 2011.
  24. Munn, N. J. (2012). The reality of friendship within immersive virtual worlds. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 1–10.Google Scholar
  25. Nielsen, M. E. J. (2010). Safe, sane, and consensual—consent and the ethics of BDSM. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24, 265–288.Google Scholar
  26. Nolan, C. (2010). Inception. Studios: Warner Bros.Google Scholar
  27. Orend, B. (2006). The morality of war. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
  28. Powers, T. (2003). Real wrongs in virtual communities. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossignol, J. (2005). A deadly dollar. The Escapist, 19, 18–22.Google Scholar
  30. Second Life [computer software]. (2003). Linden Lab.Google Scholar
  31. Strikwerda, L. (2012). Theft of virtual items in online multiplayer computer games: an ontological and moral analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 414–426.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wertheimer, A. (2000). What is consent? And is it important? Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 3, 557–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolfendale, J. (2007). My avatar, my self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. World of Warcraft [computer software]. (2004). Blizzard/Vivendi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDePauw UniversityGreencastleUSA

Personalised recommendations