Moral and Ethical Implications of Virtual Reality

Every endeavor and ambition in life requires some form of decision making. The better we are at making good decisions, the more we can gain a favorable outcome from our endeavors and ambitions. Good decision making requires both moral and ethical fortitude. Virtual Reality (VR) in the psychological sense is an ambition to experience a world free of inhibitions and social judgments. Because this apparition of reality pays no immediate consequences for the mistakes we make in it, moral and ethical guidance is imperative. Does this virtual experience of reality impair ones judgment of actual reality? The ethical and moral questions raised by this phenomenon are very important to preserving our continuous perception of what is real and what isn’t. This section of the research paper is going to explore the moral and ethical equivalents of participating in virtual reality. Questions about impairment of moral and ethical compasses will be answered. Psychological representations and definitions of VR will further enhance our understanding of how VR can be either be a tool for social reform or a danger to moral and ethical aptitude.

A Third State of Consciousness

Imagination is a very powerful exercise for escaping pain or peril. It fuels creativity and builds hope. It can also unconsciously or consciously be used to exaggerate fear that either imprisons or save us from imminent threats and danger. The human mind is always searching for some form of alternate reality, for a place that allows us to right our wrongs, exert revenge, and deliver judgment. An article titled The Real, the Virtual, and the Moral: Ethics at the Intersection of Consciousness published in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, and written by Bivins and Newton explores the possibilities of a third state of consciousness that results from the existence and use of VR (Bivins & Newton, 2003, p. 213). This philosophical article presents Kant’s description and differentiations between the phenomenal and the noumenal. Where the noumenal is the empirical reality which is usually unknown and the phenomenal is the perceived reality, a reality that can only be sensed by our five senses. Bivins and Newton believe that humans are always seeking states beyond the physical, hence VR, and this strive for an increase in awareness should have the ultimate moral and ethical goal of pushing for a better self. The article goes on to explain that our perceived reality might also be termed as a VR because our perceptions of our present state of society are feed by ideologies that we did not experience, but were passed down to us from generation to generation (Bivins & Newton, 2003, p. 220). Bivins and Newton’s opinion leans towards the ideology that VR is vital to our lives. Sound moral and ethical proponents can succeed in improving character and behavior by applying circumscribed usage of VR in day to day living. Sometimes it takes a life time to correct mistakes. The opportunity VR provides is the ability to recreate exact replicas of real life scenarios that can be used to experience closure from unfavorable incidents. A good example is the use of VR to heal or mitigate Post Traumatic Distress in Soldiers. The source of the trauma is recreated for the soldier to experience. In this virtual experience, the soldier gets the opportunity to make different choices to obtain a sense of closure that psychologically heals his subconscious from the trauma initially experienced. The soldier’s third state of consciousness yearns for the opportunity to right and heal the trauma that affects the conscious functioning of the mind. The apparition of the past experience allows the mind to bring to surface the traumas that cannot be accessed consciously. The moral and ethical consequences of this practice result in preservation of morality that initially qualified the patient’s eligibility to become a soldier. It also preserves the soldier’s ethical judgment regarding the ability to making decisions under pressure regardless of the outcome. Bivins and Newton are adamant that humans are eternally seeking beyond the temporal into a reality that is not consciously present (Bivins & Newton, 2003, p. 222). With the hope that such VRs can transcend the pigments of imagination and become a tangible and present form of reality that can be experienced. This does pose the question; does this cause a neglect of the present? According to Bivins and Newton’s account of Kant’s phenomenal and noumenal world, the real world is phenomenal, meaning we observe things as they appear and not as they really are (noumenal) (Bivins & Newton, 2003, p. 213-229). This means our craving for VR is a phenomenal process that helps to ground us in our present realities. Under circumscribed conditions, VR can help increase or preserve our moral and ethical aptitudes.

The Accuracies of Virtual Reality

The integrity of Moral and Ethical decisions is solely based on the information and circumstances at hand. If these entities are flawed or falsified, then moral and ethical judgment becomes impaired. An inaccuracy in VR causes an aberration of sound moral and ethical judgment. Brey in his article titled: The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality: Ethics & Information Technology exemplifies these aberrations of reality in VR by first giving a definitive description of VR, which enables one to appreciate the eminent vulnerability present in falsifying reality in VR (Brey, 1999). Brey describes Virtual Reality (VR) as a three-dimensional interactive computer-generated environment that incorporates a first-person perspective (Brey, 1999). He uses this definition to ethically evaluate the first-person perspective as an actor and not just an observer. This definition leads to the awareness of the moral and ethical choices available to the user. Brey emphasizes that VR permits morality that is proscribed in the real world, and that more purposeful utilizations of the VR technology for education, training, therapy, and entertainment would render circumscribed applications (Brey, 1999). Circumscribed applications of VR are governed by professional organizations to ensure the integrity of reality replication (Brey, 1999). Therefore the moral and ethical impact from these applications can be transposed into reality safely. On the other hand, the ethical and moral analysis of hyperviolent or other-wise morally controversial computer games shows that these VR applications fail to uphold accepted standards of accuracy by representing misinterpretation of reality. The apparent ethical question becomes: Can VR induce individuals to behave unethically in the real world? With Byers’s analysis the answer is yes! Video games are a constant source for the opportunity of indulging in proscribed morality. The violence exemplified in these games cannot be directly transferred into reality, but the attitude and the dispositions towards the violence can. These games slowly reduce our inhibitions particularly directed towards morality. On a subconscious level, one begins to tolerate actions, ideologies, and predispositions that were totally negated prior to prolonged involvement in VR games. At tender age’s especially pre-teen years, character and habits have not become solidified. Exposure to these experiences of VR negatively influence morality and become precursors for unethical behavior. In adults the results may not be overwhelmingly negative but the impact can still be realized with reduced inhibitions to proscribed behavior. Brey uses the Kantian duty ethics to develop two arguments. He titled his arguments as: Argument from moral development and the Argument from psychological damage. Kantian duty ethics upholds as the most fundamental moral principle that human beings have a duty to treat other persons with respect, this is, to treat them as ends and not as means, or to do to them as one would expect to be treated by others (Brey, 1999, p. 8). In relation to this ethical perspective, the argument from moral development argues that even though, according to Kant, animals have no intrinsic worth, and do not deserve human respect, avoidance should be given to treating them with cruelty (Nance, 2012). Should we indulge in this, those actions can be easily transferred to fellow human beings. In this regard if disrespectful treatment of animals results in disrespectful treatment of human beings, then it would imply that disrespectful treatment of virtual characters in VR would yield disrespectful treatment of humans in reality (Brey, 1999). An additional deduction, which still lacks empirical evidence, summarizes that humans are psychologically structured such that cruel or other-wise immoral behavior practiced in one domain can carry over to another (Brey, 1999). Brey’s second argument: The argument from psychological harm, argues that third parties may suffer psychological harm by the knowledge that a representation of themselves or individuals like them, or representation of other beings or things that they value, are not treated with respect by others (Brey, 1999). In all this, one can see that reality replication that involves proscribed morality has a negative impact on moral and ethical values. The dispositions and attitudes used to experience such VRs can be easily transferable into reality. The consequences involve progressive reduction of inhibitions and increased tolerance to proscribed behaviors.

Immersions of Virtual Reality

We have 5 senses which all work in tandem for accurate perceptions of our environment. We can see, taste, smell, hear, and feel all at the same time without interference from adjacent senses. But this is based on the condition that all senses have the same point of reference. Regardless of the point of reference, reality continues whether we sense it or not. Visual illusions occur because a point of reference is flawed, and recovery from such illusions would require a realignment of reference. This ideology is applicable to Shatzer’s definition of VR in his article title: Are we forming ourselves for a post human future? His article defines Virtual Reality (VR) based on the level of immersion. It enumerates fully immersive (head-mounted devices), semi-immersive (large Projection Screens), and non-immersive (personal computers) (Shatzer, 2012, p. 81). The classification depends wholly on how much of reality the user can perceive while immersed in VR. This article focuses more on the non-immersive (NI) type of VRs. The reasoning for this is because NI is continually persistent and ever present with or without the participation of the user. The Articles explains that this character of NI affects the sub-consciousness of both engaged and non-engaged users, hereby affecting morality on a subconscious level. With this level of description, it can be observed that distractions can occur in NI VRs that can impair moral and ethical judgments. These distractions could be short or long term. Shatzer further divides NI into two sub categories. The Ludic virtual worlds, which he describes as rule-based games involving direct competition between players (Shatzer, 2012). The second is the Paidic world’s which emphasize free play and creativity with less emphasis on rule-constrained competition (Shatzer, 2012). He also called the Paidic a non-game virtual world. His reasoning for these levels of classification was to draw specific attention to a section of VR that incorporates the idea of a virtual social network platform. This platform allows its residents to create alternate identities drawn from real and idealized life. His Moral and Ethical angle implies that morality can become skewed as a result of the ease of exploring this virtual world (Shatzer, 2012). More people are spending increasing amounts of time in such worlds which cause some scholars to predict that the real world will have to change if it wants to lure these people out of the virtual and back into reality (Shatzer, 2012). This virtual world is favorable to its users because their immersion, according to Shatzer, allows them to have a second life; a life that communicates that the problem with the human condition is a lack of meaningful relationships and possessions. With these observations, morality and ethics are approached differently in these worlds. The attitude of cause and effect is suspended because there is no immediate retribution for unethical and immoral behavior. These worlds can create false hopes for their users. They encourage a post human future that cannot be attained. Immersion in VR can alter our moral and ethical values subconsciously and consciously. Whether this immersion is total or partial, lack of a strong and firm grip on reality will cause a prolonged delusion of reality in VR. According to an article titled “Effects of Duration of Immersion in a Virtual Reality Environment on Postural Stability”, written by Murata Atsuo, immersions in virtual reality have a physiological effect on postural stability (Murata, 2004). His argument augments the studies that reveal that prolonged exposures to VR cause postural instability and motion sickness. In relation to these findings, it can be easily deduced that if immersions in VR can cause physiological aberrations, then they can certainly cause aberrations in moral and ethical behaviors and aptitudes. In summary, VR has an adverse effect on the perception of our environments and our reality, thereby having an effect on our moral and ethical values. These impacts could be conscious, but more often there are unconscious changes that affect the way we make ethical decisions and moral judgments.

References

Bivins, T. H., & Newton, J. H. (2003). The Real, the Virtual, and the Moral: Ethics at the Intersection of Consciousness. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 18, 213-229.
Brey, P. (1999). The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality. Ethics & Information Technology, 1, 5. doi:10.1023/A:1010069907461
Murata, A. (2004). Effects of Duration of Immersion in a Virtual Reality Environment on Postural Stability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(4), 463-477. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1704_2
Nance, M. (2012). Kantian Right and the Categorical Imperative: Response to Willaschek. International Journal Of Philosophical Studies, 20(4), 541-556. doi:10.1080/09672559.2012.668921
Shatzer, J. (2012). ARE WE FORMING OURSELVES FOR A POSTHUMAN FUTURE? Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, 28, 81-87.