Virtual morality

Great Debates
1

Our ability to create images and impressions that deceive the senses via technology has grown by leaps and bound lately. Computers hit the scene less than seventy years ago. Thirty years ago, graphics were still limited to dots and lines. Now we can create a photo-real digital images of nearly anything, and photo-real movies are rapidly becoming a reality. This trend will continue. Our ability to make CGI images that ape reality must improve, given how much we’re investing in it. At the same time, we’re learning more about the human brain, and thus we’ll become better at having computers interact with that brain. Given these trends, I’d say that total virtual reality (TVR) is inevitable.

What do I mean by total virtual reality? A computerized experience, in which the technology provides inputs to all the senses, that is indistinguishable from real life. A state where the user has no way of knowing that what they sense doesn’t exist in the physical world, only in a virtual one.

Having reached a state where the TVR technology exists, economics will guarantee that it becomes available to people. And some people, I rather imagine, will want to use it to flee reality entirely and substitute a digital experience for any real experience. Could this be done? I see no reason why not. All you need is a TVR headset and possibly some other equipment to make the experience real, plus an IV to keep your body nourished and some other medical means of dealing with bodily waste. If you had enough money to pay somebody to maintain all this equipment for the duration of your life, you could just step into the TVR and kiss reality goodbye.

Here’s the debate question: would it be moral to do such a thing?

I say no. It’s been a general agreement in all societies that avoiding reality is morally wrong. (Except possibly in a few weird tribes and cults.) Most cultures condemn hallucinogenic drugs. More relevantly, we disapprove of people who create their “own little worlds”. Some rich crackpot who decides to build a property where he or she stays totally cut off from reality and constructs a fantasy scenario instead is frowned upon. In our culture, Michael Jackson creeps people out because he did exactly that. There’s a general agreement that such behavior is a sign of moral decay and societal decline.

What say you?

2

If it remains in the virtual world, nobody real is being harmed.

If it encourages/feeds/provokes a pattern of real-world behaviour that is undesirable, it might be a bad thing.

I’m sure we did exactly this question less than a month ago. Hope I answered the same in that one.

3

**Virtual Murder ? **

A virtual existence is no life at all.

*Quo Vadis? *

What say you?

4

In the submergence of reality on a virtual plane, stand stable as a ghost of cells moving slowly across the grid, birthing new cells in your path, leaving dead cells in your wake, as you sweep weightlessly through electronic existence. With the gentlest lift of a glowing arm, release gliders as eagles to fly straight into eternity or die against the limits of the array, or crash against each other, mating and reforming into beings of greater speed or rapidly fading death. Heal them, if that’s your calm wish, carving away dead cells and placing new ones, healing them with the benign calm of Francis of Assisi and letting the patterns reform to fly again.

Life. It’s a game.

5

I say it’s morally neutral, assuming you aren’t neglecting any of your responsibilities to others by escaping into this virtual world. I say the same about drug use and building a fantasy theme park world in your back yard, too. You have the right to entertain yourself however you want as long as you’re not stepping on anyone else’s rights.

It seems to me that opposition to this behavior stems from some puritan work ethic which says pleasure is bad if it comes easily or without risk. When I picture someone complaining about the evils of hallucinogens or VR, I can’t help but think they’ll condemn oral sex and contraception in the next breath.

6

As regards that other thread, I’m not differentiating between what folks decide to do with their TVR experiences. For the purposes of this thread, virtually slaughtering your neighbors and virtually running through a field of daisies and butterflies are morally equivalent.

All, while TVR may at first be available only for short-term entertainment, I’m worried about what happens when it becomes a thing that people can plug into permanently. A two-hour TVR session wouldn’t differ much from a movie in practical terms.

On the other hand, when a person can arrange to have themselves hooked up to the TVR machine, I think that’s a difference of kind rather than one of degree. Since the dawn of history, we’ve viewed art, from the first cave paintings up through the latest Hollywood blockbusters, as something relating to reality. We view, listen to, and experience art in the hopes that it will help change or augment our experience of reality. The permanent TVR experience would totally invert that equation; it’s art to destroy rather than enhance our experience of the real.

(And I’m not really debating government of regulation of TVR. History teaches that the rich get whatever pleasures they want, no matter what the government says or does. I’m debating our personal moral response to it.)

7

No, Michael Jackson creeps people out because he is an adult and he apparently brought unrelated children onto his property to have slumber parties.

The same scenario but without the children, and he’d be on MTV Cribs.

Throw in some attractive women between the ages of 18 and 25 and they’d make a reality show out of it.

8

If your vision of a “permanent” TVR scenario is morally wrong, then how about someone who finds a way to live the rest of their life on a real beach in Tahiti? Or on a yacht, or in Las Vegas? These could all be viewed as just as much of an escape from the “real” world (or at least my real world), but are in reality are just a different life style.

I agree with Mr2001

Would your objections go away for someone who is chronically in pain, and can escape that pain in a TVR world? How about someone who is parallized?

9

Hmmm, boy, I can’t believe I’m actually going to post here. Every time the word “morality” shows up in my posts, I get hammered. I can’t stand moral absolutism, yet am apparently guilty of it myself (you say moral absolutism, I say self-evident truth …)

Okay, so what is wrong with indulging in an alternate reality? Well, my first thought is that injecting heroin into one’s veins or sucking in the vapors of methamphetamine are other ways of indulging in alternate reality. And carried to a logical extreme, you could say any coping mechanism that lets us put aside for a time the stresses and harmful realities of everyday life – yoga, three fingers of Scotch, primal scream therapy – are indulgences in alternate reality.

Like so many things, the thing itself is, as **Mr2001 ** posited, morally neutral. And, in truth, the use of a drug, liquor or meditation is morally neutral. But the abuse or misuse of the thing, that is when we begin to hit a moral line in the sand. Which is why some drugs are illegal – it is impossible for almost all human beings to use them without abandoning reality altogether to live in a drug-addled alternate reality, thus becoming a burden on and a danger to society. And really, we are coming to see the users of drugs as less morally culpable than those who make and supply the drugs, especially knowing the damage they cause.

So I suppose the abuse and “pushing” of TVR, to the detriment of the user or society, would be immoral, yes.

Gaming scenarios that include slaughtering vast numbers of people, or even a few specific people, aren’t any less moral than fantasizing about it without the technology. Yes, it’s immoral to wish for the death of someone else (capital punishment opponent here!) but we all do it from time to time. (Who in the corporate world hasn’t looked at the little white ball sitting on the tee, imagined the boss’ face, and then smashed that sucker 200 yards down the fairway? Immoral? I dunno – you’d be hard pressed to make the argument.) On the other hand, a racist who used TVR to commit virtual genocide is still just a racist – it isn’t the TVR that makes him/her immoral, it’s the racism. (There I go, being a moral absolutist again!)

10

I’ll second that there’s a lot more that’s creepy about Michael Jackson than his wanting to live in his own little world. I’ll go further and say that we’re creeped out because we think he wants to live in his own little world for the purpose of avoiding the laws that govern the real world, and that some of the laws he wants to evade were made to prevent harm to others.

I’d say the problem is the burden on and danger to society, not the act of living in a drug-addled reality itself. If you’re not being a burden on society (ie, you have enough money to pay for your vice, whatever it might be, without going into debt, getting welfare, or turning to crime), and you’re not involved in something that’s a danger to society (being involved in activities that might be dangerous to someone other than yourself, like drug dealing and the crime that goes with it), go for it.

If TVR is sold legally and openly, there shouldn’t be too much of a problem with crime associated with that (it might even reduce crime, by giving some people another interesting way to stay out of trouble). Some people will abuse it, but I’d say the person described in the OP, if they’re not neglecting any responsibilities to other people or to their pets, isn’t. They have the money to stay in the TVR 24/7, so they obviously aren’t being a burden on society.

11

The two go hand-in-hand, dearie. I’ve known a lot of drunks and addicts in my life, and not a damn one of 'em **wasn’t ** a burden on and a danger to society. Separating “drug-addled” from “burden on society” is purely theoretical; in real life, it doesn’t really happen.

12

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I say no. It’s been a general agreement in all societies that avoiding reality is morally wrong.

[QUOTE]

I agree with your conclusion, that it is morally wrong, but I disagree with your reasoning. I believe escape from reality is a moral neutrality, as Mr2001 mentioned; something as simple as watching a movie, listening to music, or even day-dreaming can be as much of an escape from reality as alcohol, drugs, or TVR. However, each of these can be an arguably ammoral activity (e.g., I’m just watching a movie to relax, I’m having a drink to relax, etc.).

What I think turns them into immoral activities is when the person neglects their personal and societal obligations to participate; that is, when he stops contributing to society and starts becoming a burden. This is the difference between someone who has a couple drinks to relax, and an alcoholic. This is the difference between someone who possibly does a few drugs recreationally, and a pothead. This would be the difference between someone who uses TVR recreationally, and a TVR-lifer.

13

I’m having a horrible flashback to various Trek/holodeck threads.

14

Then we can simply define becoming a burden on society as the immoral act, right? If you’re correct, then we can just notice that everyone who uses TVR (or drugs, etc.) is a burden and we can blame them all we want.

If you’re wrong, though, as I believe you are, then we can avoid calling people immoral who aren’t a burden. I know addicts who aren’t a burden on or a danger to society. They just get high all the time.

I don’t think anyone is obligated to “contribute” to society. If you have the resources to spend the rest of your life sipping mai tais and surfing in Tahiti, or hooked up to a TVR machine, or smoking a joint every 15 minutes, without depending on the government or relatives to support you, what’s wrong with that?

15

I think there’s a level of use (of most things, don’t know about all drugs) that doesn’t necessarily lead to a burden on society.

For example, say someone with no family obligations spends all their time either working, sleeping/eating/showering/etc, or in the TVR machine. They’re not having any problems at work because of spending time in TVR, and they’re making enough money at their work to meet their financial obligations. I would say that person’s not a burden to society- that just happens to be how they choose to spend their free time, just like some people choose to spend their free time reading books or watching TV. In fact, I would say it’s not qualitatively different from my going home from work and immersing myself in the life and times of the Vikings through a book I’m currently reading, or in the life of Queen Elizabeth I by watching Masterpiece Theatre’s “The Virgin Queen” on TV.

I’d say the situation is the same if we change the scenario and the person has enough money to live on without working, so they’re spending all their time (except for sleeping, eating, showering, etc) in the TVR.

Now, where it’s different is where they are having problems at work because they’re spending too much time in TVR, or they’re neglecting their spouse or children or pets.

I’d say addiction, by definition, falls onto the side where whatever substance or activity the person is addicted to is causing problems in other areas of their life. But if someone has the self-control to use something to the point where it doesn’t cause problems in the rest of their life and no further, I’d say there’s no reason they shouldn’t do it.

Obviously, I don’t know if it’s possible for some people to use TVR in moderation, because it doesn’t exist. But, given that there are people who drink alcohol, read books, and watch TV in moderation, I would guess that it is.

16

[QUOTE=Mr2001]
Then we can simply define becoming a burden on society as the immoral act, right? If you’re correct, then we can just notice that everyone who uses TVR (or drugs, etc.) is a burden and we can blame them all we want./QUOTE]
You can define anything any way you want to, but I resent you trying to use my words to draw conclusions I never drew.

If you go back to my first post, you’ll see that I clearly distinguished between using and abusing. That was my whole point – virtual reality is not immoral per se. But the abuse of virtual reality, just like the abuse of drugs, alcohol or almost anything else, can lead to activities that are considered by nearly everyone to be immoral.

And if you show me one meth addict, any meth addict, I’ll show you 14,274 people (at last count) who consider that person a burden on and/or danger to society. Is that immoral in and of itself? Well, an overwhelming majority of Americans seem to think so, and you and I can argue that they’re wrong until we’re blue in the face, and it isn’t going to change a thing. There’s nothing illegal about being drunk and unemployed. But if your state of drunken dereliction causes my taxes to rise just to care for you, then yes, I get to make a moral judgement about that. I don’t get to actually DO anything about it, but I get to sit at home and feel superior.

17

My mistake, I must have missed that. I do think it’s hard to draw a line between use and abuse, though. If you define abuse as the point where you’re placing a burden on others, then it’s immoral almost by definition.

I don’t know any meth addicts, or anyone who uses meth at all, actually. Perhaps your experience with them says more about meth than about addiction in general. I know people who spend a quarter of their income on pot and have been unable to quit, but they’re not a burden or a danger to anyone.

Agreed.

18

There is nothing “morally” wrong with it because you aren’t hurting anyone. Is it morally wrong to play Everquest or World of Warcraft all day long? No. It’s unhealthy, isolating and antisocial, but not immoral.

The problem with your TVR is the same problem with all other forms of escapist entertainment. A little is a good thing, but too much and you are neglecting the development of necessary skills and probably ignoring other responsibilities.

In the end, I imagine it’s also not very satisfying to live in a world of your own creation where you have control over every aspect of it.

Neurotics build castles in the sky. Psychotics live in them.

19

Of course. And my point is that making virtual reality illegal or considering it immoral is not a good way to prevent people from abusing it. I think it’s better to promote usage in moderation.

20

This is exactly what I was trying to say, and you phrased it better than I ever good. Escape is not bad. The desire to take diversions from reality is normal; indeed, in ths day and age, I’d question the sanity of a person who didn’t desire to do so at least occasionally. Any psychiatrist would surely agree that entertainments and vacations contribute to sound mental health. There’s a boundary, however, between escapes that contribute to our functioning in society and escapes that detract from it.

Imagine this scenario. There’s a new recreational substance, zonk, that gives users one minute of pure bliss when they take it. Once the minute is up, however, they drop dead. Could we agree that zonk is immoral? I imagine we could, and all except for extreme indvidualists would agree to having zonk outlawed. Now suppose someone created zonk2, which gives two minutes of bliss before death. Same thing, the extra minute doesn’t change the argument, so taking zonk2 is also immoral. Likewise with zonk3, zonk4, zonk5, and so forth. In short, what’s wrong with these zonk drugs is not that the users are cutting off a lot of life for just a little pleasure, but rather that they’re letting the user shirk their duties to society. Once a person takes a zonk, they’ll never have a chance to make a positive contribution to their culture.

Western civilization was founded on the principle that to be morally good, one must do things that are morally good. It’s only very recently that we’ve chucked that principle in favor of the idea that it’s good enough to just avoid a certain list of things which are morally bad. That original building block Western civilization explains its success; it gave people the drive for self-betterment and channeled that into building a better society. Without it, Europe would probably have remained barbaric and primitive, just like most of the rest of the world.