Virtual morality

[Ms2001]

@ITR champion

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.

No, I don’t think we could. It’s essentially a form of suicide, and as we can see from past and present threads, there is no SDMB consensus on the morality of suicide.

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.

I must say I’m offended by the suggestion that I have a “duty” to make contributions to my culture at the expense of my own happiness.

[Anne_Neville]

@Mr2001

I must say I’m offended by the suggestion that I have a “duty” to make contributions to my culture at the expense of my own happiness.

I don’t agree that I have some obligation to make contributions to my culture at the expense of my own happiness, either.

If you did feel such an obligation, are you obligated to spend every minute of every day doing something that contributes to society?

Oh, and who gets to decide which activities contribute to society or culture? Does writing a new rap song that will be offensive to some people but that others will enjoy count? What about making a movie that critics think has little artistic merit, but is seen and enjoyed by a lot of people? Culture encompasses a lot more than highbrow art aimed at the upper classes- remember, Shakespeare’s plays were written as much to appeal to the common people and make money for the players as they were for anything else.

In the virtual-reality example, there would presumably be people who write some sort of virtual reality scripts- they would be contributing to culture in the same way that authors of books or composers of music do. Does giving them some of your money to experience their creations count as contributing to society, given that they would probably create fewer or no works if people didn’t pay them? Wine is a part of several European and American cultures- am I contributing to culture if I buy and drink those wines? You could easily argue that mass-market beer or Coca-Cola or McDonald’s food is part of American culture, too, and that people who pay for and consume those things are contributing to their culture.

Or do you have to create the art or music or food yourself to be contributing to the culture- giving money to others who do that won’t cut it? But that way, we end up with more mediocre art but less great art, because the people who create the great art have to do other things to pay the bills. (And if you think the food in that case would have to be better than McDonald’s, I’ll just say- you haven’t tasted much truly bad cooking in your life, for which you should be grateful)