Virtue Ethics in a Virtual Reality
MICHAEL MACCUTCHEON
» Download PDF
Introduction
Ethics can and should be an established, unchanging ideal.
However, the contexts and situations in which ethics are applied do in fact
change which in turn end up changing the argument. Virtue ethics makes
the study of ethical application easier because in virtue, even though the
actions may change, the true source of consideration is in the agent. Yet
today’s environment makes studying, understanding, and applying ethics
to the individual more difficult. We’ve created the Internet where people
can interact behind a veil of anonymity, and in return we get hackers,
identity thieves, and computer predators. Immoral, unethical, and
inhumane activities become very commonplace in a virtual world held
together by virtual rules. Not only should today’s activities be examined,
but in doing so, the conditions that help create it; conditions that are born
in the world of virtual reality, where reality seems just that.
Understanding the Information Age
Information has often been intangible, existing in the mind when
not found on an actual piece of paper or in a leather-bound book. This
intangibility has never been more obvious than in today’s world, where
near to a billion websites exist in a form that can’t actually be touched but
is easily seen. 1 When once we interacted with each other in person, we
now do much of it across cities or states by cell phone, e-mail, or instant
message. The irony, of course, is that the more connected we are, the
less engaging our relationships often feel. At times, between the constant
barrage of faceless and voiceless text messages and e-mails, it feels as if
we’re just ships passing in the night. This is part of the disconnect that is
driving virtue out of town. We’re losing our privacy as we are held to an
extraordinary level of accountability every day under the constant flow of
surveillance. We are almost forced into dishonesty for the sake of
compassion as we use every excuse in the book to get out of offers of
lunch, coffee, beer, dinner, movies, parties, etc. While this raised
accountability may be forcing the issue, these moments of dishonesty
begin to feel so acceptable because of both the physical and psychological
separation created by technology. 2
The disconnect is most easily understood when seen in its most
extreme forms. Dateline NBC did a memorable special on computer
predators that were using instant messaging to set up sexual encounters
with underage girls. After being caught, several admitted that “I was only
talking to her on the Internet, she could have been any age besides what
she told me, there was no way for me to know for sure.” 3 The girls, of
course were not the age they had told them (NBC used employees of
Perverted-Justice to pose as teenagers) but that plausible deniability
wasn’t enough to keep 120 of them out of prison. This is a shocking
example of just how far technology can make people stray. It could be
argued that it does not spur negative behavior, but instead is an outlet
that allows them to secretly do what they already want to do. Yet this
example doesn’t follow the typical criminal pattern. Of the 250 predators
caught by NBC, several were pastors, preachers, and priests; some were
college students with no history of criminal behavior; some were married
men with children the very age of the teenage girls they were hoping to
sleep with. The reasons for this “out-of-character” behavior must have an
explanation, and what follows is an examination of how and why the
virtual world can transform our norms and erase our virtues. First, an
exploration of the history of virtue ethics is necessary in applying it to the
ethical arguments.
History of Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics essentially began with Aristotle’s “Nicomachean
Ethics.” He teaches that humans naturally move towards their “telos” or
full human flourishing. In order to do this, humans must consistently
practice virtues such as friendship, forgiveness, and wisdom. 4 If such
virtues are practiced, ‘eudaimonia,’ or utter happiness and fulfillment, is
reached. The virtuous life, however, is not focused on the actions, (as
utilitarian or deontological ethics focuses) but on the agent itself.
In order to practice virtue, each human must perform their
individual function, which in man’s case is reason. Thus, man is able to
reach eudaimonia by practicing virtue in accordance with reason. The
important factor in understanding this practice is not that the virtuous life
leads to the good life but rather that a virtuous life is the good life. 5 This
good life develops over long periods of time as the tendencies that we are
born with are shaped through education and habituation by following
good moral examples. This development “often takes a whole lifetime,
but once it is firmly established, one will consistently, predictably, and
appropriately act accordingly in a variety of situations.” 6 This fulfillment
of virtue then allows one to become a moral leader for someone else,
allowing the cycle to continue.
This definition is why specific virtues are rarely defined, as the
agent and not the action is the vehicle of virtuous living. Thus, applying
virtue ethics must be accomplished through human reasoning as well as
looking to common virtuous examples such as the Bible, Koran, or the
Dhamma. The very nature of virtue ethics makes its application feel real
and human, as opposed to the often ‘cold’ and mathematic nature of
utilitarian ethics.
Playing With ‘Lives’
One of the already classic debates of our time is the ethics of
actions committed in a video game. Below is a perfect example of why
these ethics and their applications are so difficult to understand, to argue,
or to impose:
“A few weeks ago [my daughter] Lillian announced that she had won the
prize for having the best flower garden in her Animal Crossing town. Apparently there is a garden-of-the-month contest. The game system
has a calendar and operates in real-time, so a garden-of-the-month
contest takes place, literally, every month. So I said, "Oh, good. Did you
buy a bunch of nice flowers and plant them around your house?"
"No," she said. "I win the flower contest every month. It's no big deal."
"What do you mean?"
"Well, the night before the contest, I go around to all the houses in town
and stomp on everyone's flowers. So I always win."
Now this got my attention. My first reaction was pretty negative. I
looked at her quizzically, like I couldn't believe what she had said. She
noticed my look and said, "Dad, they're not real people. It's just a
computer game."
"Well, yeah," I said. "I suppose so. But I don't know, don't you feel a little
bad about doing that?"
She didn't even look up from the game. "No. Why should I?” 7
This example exhibits the purist form of ethical consideration
when looked at from the eyes of a child. If Lillian were to trample around
on her real neighbors flowers, she would certainly feel guilty for her
actions. However, because the people’s flowers that she is destroying in
Animal Crossing aren’t actually people but instead just representations,
she isn’t hurting anyone. This is the same reason why we don’t go to jail
for killing innocent people on a video game, because they’re not people.
Yet, this is a distorted view on what is and isn’t ethical caused by a world
that is often too caught up in its laws. If you take this situation out of
context and instead found your friend drawing graphic pictures of people
being killed along with detailed plans of mass executions in your town
with an accompanying written dialogue of it plays out in his imagination,
you would be mortified (and probably correct in notifying the authorities).
However, when you get the courage to sit down and talk with him about
it, he tells you that the people in his plans aren’t real, just made up names
and images. His intent is only to imagine what it would be like, what it
would feel like to pull the trigger, what the blood and bone would look
like. This description should be chilling, yet it is no different than what
takes place when we pop a video game into a computer and start to do
exactly what he is imagining. So what separates the psychotic thoughts of
a disturbed individual from a gamer carrying out the disturbed individual’s
desires with a mouse and keyboard? It’s the disconnect experienced by
the virtual world, what Andrew Kimbrell calls “Cold Evil” in which “technology masks its consequences through physical and temporal
distancing, thus creating a psychological disconnect between the doer and
the deed.” 8 So while the concept and reasons can be explained and even cited, the application of virtue is much more complex. Thus, the ethical
complexity should be expanded on.
Ethical Implications
Any sort of situation that disconnects the agent with the action
endangers the virtuous life. As witnessed in the analogy comparing the
imagination with a video game, the inability for reason to interact with
virtue occurs when technology and virtual realities serve as the medium.
While much of our day is concerned with direct interaction and
clarification of our virtues, technology removes the sincere role of virtue.
There are two reasons for this found in the sheer nature of video games:
human behavior with no consequence, and forced linear behavior without
choice. Virtues must be a choice, and while they may become habitual,
there is still a choice involved. A video game forces the user to behave in
accordance with the predetermined storyline set up by the designer. If
one does not want to kill, the only choice is to turn off the game. Life
does not have this power switch, so the lack of a real practice of virtue in
an environment that in many ways mimics all other facets of reality is
degrading to one’s ability to make virtuous decisions, and essentially will
reinforce un-virtuous behavior in the real world.
As presented in the introduction on virtue ethics, the virtuous life
can only be achieved through habituation and education. Many violent
video games (or any games where one breaks the law) present a situation
that removes the practice of virtue by explaining it away as not being real.
However, a video game is real, the virtues and decisions practiced in them
are real, and the consequences are real. The critical point is that this
reality exists only in the mind of the user. So while the actions may not
have a consequence outside of the user, the action does have a
consequence within the user. One of these consequences is the practice
of un-virtuous acts, leading to a less fulfilling life and ultimately degrading
one’s own virtues.
Born Again
Second Life is probably one of the most bizarre and intriguing
innovations in recent years. It is a software program where online users
interact in a virtual world in an attempt to create a simulated reality.
There are over 8 million users worldwide demonstrating that this isn’t just
a niche fad. The game operates with virtual currency (called Lindens)
which must be purchased with real money, and is so efficient in its
conversion that virtual money earned in the game can actually be
converted to real currency. This virtual currency can be used to purchase
clothing, food, houses, cars, or just about anything that you would purchase in real life; except that it isn’t real. The people you’re
interacting with are real, however anything that you do to them ‘isn’t’
(outside the psychological implications of your actions). It does get
confusing, which is why it makes such an exciting ethical argument.
The game (if the liberty is granted to call it that) is set up so that
anyone can do just about anything. If you’ve always wanted to live a life
of crime, you can, and you won’t be punished for it (unless you steal and
sell someone’s original creative work which is actually covered by
copyright laws). In some cases, people caught committing malicious acts
have been booted from the game, but as a punishment, the penalty
doesn’t suit the crime. Yet what crimes are they actually committing? If
in the game you paint graffiti on a wall, you didn’t actually paint graffiti on
a wall. Fixing the property damage is free and just requires a few
keystrokes by Second Life’s Abuse team unlike the massive amount of
time, money, and effort that goes into correcting real graffiti. 9 Thus,
committing a crime in Second Life is no different than if you were to write
about it, or play it in a video game. Yet some assemblies are taking the
crimes very seriously. In the most extreme example I could find, a
Brussels court is working together with the Federal Computer Crime Unit
to patrol the virtual world and prosecute rape cases. 10 It may be best to leave it to the opinion of the reader whether any form of ‘sex’ in a video game could dare be labeled as real. If it can’t be, then it’s hard to apply
any real rationale in determining what’s moral and immoral in the
imaginary.
†
†Other online worlds exist outside of Second Life, such as Habbo,where a
17 year old in Holland was arrested for stealing $5,836 worth of virtual
furniture. Thus, in some cases, there is a legal realm that is now being
pursued, making the imaginary seem that much more real. 14
Ethical Implications
Second Life has become an argument of oppositions. For
example, while an expensive car in reality can be touched and driven, anequally
expensive car in Second Life can only be seen and controlled. And
while a video game only causes reaction in the user, Second Life causes
reactions in two or more parties. Thus, stealing or breaking someone’s property is a virtual activity and not tied to a similar action in the world. However, the feelings
of insecurity, hurt, or anger felt by the victim are all
very real. This is why the value of virtues in Second Life can actually be tested
or even fostered. As opposed to the argument pointing out the futility of many games in cultivating virtue, Second Life can be an arena that actually advances
virtue ethics.When the user immediately recognizes that in
Second Life the property or even the world itself is fake, the natural
tendency to apply real virtues to any situation becomes diminished. Thus,
with the natural tendency diminished, the effort required to practice
virtue is increased, and the habituation becomes more difficult. However,
when virtue is successfully practiced its occurrence is more valuable and
shaping for the individual practicing it. Therefore, while the environment
that is presented in Second Life is rife with unethical behavior, it still
promotes an environment to better one’s own virtues. If you can treat a
virtual representation of a human well, certainly you can do the same through direct human interaction!
The Invisible Breach
Its likely that nowhere is Kimbrell’s Cold Evil and accompanying
technological disconnect more evident than in the case of computer
spying, hacking, and/or monitoring. The intentions of hacking (or cracking
as it is technically known) are wide ranging, from peeking just for fun, to
making jokes on a company’s server, to stealing data, to destroying an entire IT infrastructure. Obviously, they go in order of malicious severity,
but while they are also punishable on different levels, the ethical
implication is intrusion and manipulation.
In the case of ‘just peeking,’ many hackers do not see what they
are doing as wrong, justifying it by saying that “we aren’t hurting anyone
by just looking around.” 11 This argument is frightening. If you were to ask
these hackers if they had any issues with breaking into someone’s house
while they were sleeping, just peeking around and not taking or hurting
anyone, I would be shocked if any of them said they would be okay with
it. Yet the two cases are no different. If the homeowner were to discover
that someone had been snooping around their house, they would be
terrified, unsecure, manipulated, and angry. Conversely, a person would
feel many of the same emotions if they discovered that someone had
been snooping around their computer files.
The fact that many computer hackers feel that their activities do
not break any ethical boundaries can be explained by the lack of several
shaping factors. 12 First, many computer users lack any positive adult
models. Unlike many fields, the individual is expected to stay just that
instead of being a member of a social community, using their skills as self-
serving entrepreneurs creating and selling the next great computer
program. Thus, adolescents are left without guidance as computer
programmers spend their time creating instead of teaching. Second,
many hackers have never been exposed to powerful computer programs
and equipment, so they fill their existence and supplement their learning
with fairly simple tricks that allow them to hack into systems. If given
access to more powerful computer capabilities, they would use their
interests and intellect in much more productive ways. Third, many
undergrad computer students are simply “treated as irresponsible children,” and should instead be treated as an apprentice with access to
faculty resources. Without it, many become spiteful and are not given
proper moral training in using their abilities. Fourth, many are not given a
“safe arena for moral experimentation.” In other words, computer
programmers should be exposed to ethical dilemmas that are involved
with hacking so that they can experience first-hand the actual results of
malicious activities. Many hackers do not actually experience the
aftermath of their work until they are arrested by the FBI.
After understanding what is lacking in the computer society, it’s
not surprising that many hackers do not have a problem with what they
are doing. It’s not a case of them feeling that what they are doing is
ethical, but instead they have never been taught why it is unethical. As in
anything in life, education may be the key to preventing it in the future.
Ethical Implications
While the previous examples provided arenas to establish
whether or not the activities are ethical, hacking does not need to be
questioned. Its illegality lends directly to its unethical nature. However, it
does provide a perfect example of exactly how virtue ethics can be
applied to today’s situations. Brian Harvey does not present his argument
as being based on virtue ethics; however it does follow the principles of
virtue ethics almost directly. As stated before, in order for one to be
virtuous, one must look to moral leaders for examples, follow their
examples through habituation and education, and then foster that
development in others. If you look at Brian Harvey’s four points for
improvement, they all exhibit ways in which one reaches virtuous
fulfillment. The first is the need for good examples from the programming peers. Just as any human requires good moral examples for
the foundation of their own practices, so too must programmers receive
the same example when dealing with a virtual world very much removed
from reality. Second, computer programmers have not been given access
to powerful equipment. The more powerful the equipment, the more
meaningful its use will be, and with it a greater sense of responsibility to
use it properly. And just as Aristotle required of his virtue students, this
requires that the programmer conduct oneself so that “fortitude appear
in labors and dangers; temperance in foregoing pleasures; prudence in
the choice between good and evil; and justice.” 13 Third, young, developing
programmers are seen as irresponsible children, unable to truly practice
their talents. Computer programmers capable of hacking should be
provided an environment where their development is recognized and
fostered, as in the life of the virtuous. Fourth, Harvey requires that an
“Ethical Environment” be provided to shape, test, and allow programmers
to practice their own morality. So too is it required of the virtuous to
fulfill their existence through habituation of virtue.
Not only does this analysis show how applicable Harvey’s
argument is to ethics, but exhibits how the practice and realization of
virtue as established thousands of years ago is still so applicable today. In
order to lead a virtuous life in this virtual world, one still need only look
back to a time where the virtual simply meant the imagination.
Conclusion
Going from one ethical arena to another can be overwhelming,
but it’s comforting to know that while the situation may change, the
application of virtue ethics is uniform. Even over two thousand years, Aristotle’s virtue ethics still apply today in a world completely alien to
what he understood. Look back just twenty years ago; the thought of
interacting with whole worlds made up of nothing more than binary
would have been laughed off as science fiction.
Today, we can pop a game into our computer and laugh with, talk
with, play with, and even hurt or kill a very real representation of a
human. As stated above, the ethical application of practicing virtue is
difficult in an environment where everything you do affects no one but
yourself. This is especially true when most of the decisions one makes are
not decisions at all, but a linear effect of the storyline.
Just as incredible is that we can log on to the internet and interact
with a whole world made up of binary code being watched, controlled,
and used by millions of very real humans. With the cold nature of one’s
actions and consequences coupled with the real people being affected,
this can be an arena where the practice of virtue means that much more
to both the agent and the recipient.
In the case of computer hacking, the whole framework of virtue
ethics fits neatly into what Brian Harvey had hoped would change the way
that computer programmers are being taught. The fact that his
argument, possibly unintentionally, lines up with Aristotle’s is comforting.
This is the case with all these examples where new technology applies to
very old principles.
Virtue ethics, which is concerned only with the agent, is in contrast
to other ethical platforms that take a situation and analyze the relativity of
the actions and in turn disregard the agent. Yet with something as sensitive
as the difference between right and wrong, relativity can be disconcerting.
Thus, in a world where changes are happening more rapidly by the decade,
it’s nice to know that virtue ethics need not change at all.
Works Cited
1. AP. (1999, July 9). Internet search engines lost in fast expanding web.
Los Angeles Times. Retreived November 8, 2007, from
http://www.trussel.com/search/engine.htm
2. Kimbrell, Andrew. (2000, October). Cold Evil: Technology and Modern
Ethics. The E.F. Schumacher Society. Retreived November 2, 2007, from
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/publications/kimbrell_00.html
3. Hansen, Chris. (2007, March 13). Reflections on 'To Catch a Predator’.
MSNBC. Retreived November 2, 2007, from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568
4. Brookshire, Mary-Sue. Virtue Ethics and Servant Leadership. Center for
Ethics, Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Retreived November 15,
2007, from http://www.ethics.emory.edu/content/view/218/146
5. Athanassoulis, Nafsika. Virtue Ethics .Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retreived November 18, 2007, from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/virtue.htm#H3
6. Ibid 5
7. Atkinson, Gordon. (2007, August 9). Real Live Preacher. Retreived
October 24, 2007, from http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/1394
8. Ibid 2
9. Mutina, Boris. (2007, June 27). Cyber Crime on Second Life. Zone-H.org.
Retreived October 18, 2007,
http://www.zoneh.org/content/view/14781/31
10. AP. (2007, April 20). Brusselse politie gaat patrouilleren op Second
Life. HLN.be: multimedia.Retreived October 21, 2007, from
http://www.hln.be/hlns/cache/det/art_439247.html?wt.bron=homeArt
11
11. Harvey, Brian. (1985, April). Computer Hacking and Ethics. UC
Berkeley. Retreived October 12, 2007,
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/hackers.html
12. Ibid 11
13. Rickaby, John. (1908, November 1). Cardinal Virtues. The Catholic
Encyclopedia.Retreived November 27, 2007, from
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03343a.htm
14. Lane, Frederick. (2007, November 15). World Wide Web – Teen
Arrested for Theft. CIO Today. Retreived November 27, 2007,
from http://www.cio-today.com/news/Teen-Arrested-for-Virtual-
Property-Theft/story.xhtml?story_id=03300316L1L9