Virtual Rape, Real Dignity: Meta-Ethics for Virtual Worlds

  • Edward H. Spence
  • Edward H. Spence
  • Edward H. Spence
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter explores what ought to be the ethics that guide the conduct of people participating in virtual worlds in their roles as designers, administrators and players or avatars. Using Alan Gewirth’s argument for the Principle of Generic Consistency (Reason and Morality, 1978) and an expanded argument for the PGC (Spence, Ethics Within Reason: A Neo-Gewirthian Approach, 2006), the chapter will demonstrate that avatars as virtual representations of real people (at least with regard to some virtual worlds in which the virtual agency of the avatar can be considered an extension of the agency of the person instantiating the avatar in the real world) can and must be perceived as virtual purposive agents that have moral rights and obligations similar to those of their real counterparts. With regard to agency those rights are merely prima facie but with regard to personhood framed around the notion of self-respect those rights are absolute. Finally, the chapter will show how the rules of virtual worlds as instantiated by the designers’ code and the administrators’ end-user license agreement (EULA), must always be consistent with and comply with the requirements of universal morality as established on the basis of the Principle of generic Consistency (PGC). When the two come into conflict, the PGC, as the supreme principle of morality, is always overriding.

Keywords

Virtual World Prima Facie Generic Consistency Virtual Representation Role Morality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Balkin, M.J. 2006. Law and liberty in virtual worlds. In The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds, ed. M.Jack Balkin and Noveck S. Beth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bartle, R.A. 2006. Virtual worldliness. In The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds, ed. M.Jack Balkin and Noveck S. Beth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beyleveld, Deryck. 1991. The dialectical necessity of morality: An analysis and defense of Alan Gewirth’s argument to the principle of generic consistency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Castronova, E. 2006. The right to play. In The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds, ed. M.Jack Balkin and Noveck S. Beth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Consalvo, Mia. 2005. Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles: Studying games and ethics. International Review of Information Ethics 3(06/2005): 7–12.Google Scholar
  6. Copier, Marinka. 2005. Connecting worlds: Fantasy role-playing games, ritual acts and the magic circle. In Proceedings of Digital Research Association (DiGRA) 2005 Conference: Changing Views-Worlds in Play, Canada, June 16–20, 2005. Vancouver: University of Vancouver.Google Scholar
  7. Dibbell, Julian. 1993. My tiny life. Owl Books,  Chapter 1, pp. 1–16. C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Edward\Computer Games\JULIANDIBBELL.mht. Accessed 4 June 2010.
  8. Dibbell, Julian. 1999. My tiny life. Owl Books,  Chapter 1, pp. 1–16. C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Edward\Computer Games\JULIANDIBBELL.mht. Accessed 4 June 2010.
  9. Fairfield, Joshua. 2009. The magic circle. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 11(4): 823–840.Google Scholar
  10. Frege, Gottlob. 1984. On sense and meaning. Trans. M. Black. In Collected papers on mathematics, logic and philosophy, ed. B. McGuiness, 157–177. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Gewirth, Alan. 1978. Reason and morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gewirth, Alan. 1982. Human rights: Essays on justification and applications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Huizinga, Johan. 1955. A study of play element in culture. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  14. Kant, Immanuel. 1981. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Koster, R. 2006. Declaring the rights of players. In The state of play: Law, games, and virtual worlds, ed. M.Jack Balkin and Noveck S. Beth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Montola, Markus. 2005. Exploring the edge of the magic circle: Defining pervasive games. In Proceedings of Digital Arts and Culture, December 2–4, 2005, 1–4. Copenhagen: IT University in Copenhagen. http://users.tkk.fi/~mmontola/exploringtheedge.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2010.
  17. Spence, Edward H. 2006. Ethics within reason: A neo-Gewirthian approach. Lanham: Lexington Books (an imprint of Rowman and Littlefield).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward H. Spence
    • 1
  • Edward H. Spence
    • 2
  • Edward H. Spence
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Communication and Creative IndustriesCharles Sturt UniversityDubboAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)CanberraAustralia
  3. 3.3TU. Centre for Ethics and TechnologyThe HagueNetherlands

Personalised recommendations