Morgan Luck

The gamer's dilemma: An analysis of the arguments for the moral distinction between virtual murder and virtual paedophilia

Most people agree that murder is wrong. Yet, within computer games virtual murder scarcely raises an eyebrow. In one respect this is hardly surprising, as no one is actually murdered within a computer game. A virtual murder, some might argue, is no more unethical than taking a pawn in a game of chess. However, if no actual children are abused in acts of virtual paedophilia (life-like simulations of the actual practice), does that mean we should disregard these acts with the same abandon we do virtual murder? In this paper I shall outline several arguments which attempt to permit virtual murder, whilst prohibiting virtual paedophilia.

Has Bartel resolved the gamer's dilemma?

In this paper we consider whether Christopher Bartel has resolved the gamer’s dilemma. The gamer’s dilemma highlights a discrepancy in our moral judgements about the permissibility of performing certain actions in computer games. Many gamers have the intuition that virtual murder is permissible in computer games, whereas virtual paedophilia is not. Yet finding a relevant moral distinction to ground such intuitions can be difficult. Bartel suggests a relevant moral distinction may turn on the notion that virtual paedophilia harms women in a way that virtual murder does not. We argue that this distinction is only in a position to provide a partial solution to the dilemma.

Crashing a virtual funeral: morality in MMORPGs

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline a case where peoples intuitions regarding the ethical status of an action performed in a massively multiplayer online role‐playing game are divided, and provide an argument to resolve this division.Design/methodology/approach – This paper takes a philosophical approach, from the analytical tradition. It details the main arguments for each side and provides counter‐arguments in order to indicate the salient points.Findings – The paper argues that, of the three arguments for the morality of particular virtual action outlined in this paper, none are satisfactory. An argument for the immorality of the action in questions based upon the fairness/sportsmanship distinction is offered.Originality/value – The development of case‐based ethical studies, which draw upon current and controversial events within popular virtual environments, are useful in the construction of a deeper understanding of moral action within such spaces.

The Equal Right to Inequality: Equality and Utility in on- and off-Campus Subject Delivery.

The principle of equality states that it is bad for some people to be worse off than others. In the context of distance education, this principle is violated on those occasions where on‐campus students have access, not only to all the resources available to distance education students, but also to face‐to‐face tutorials. This is because the distance education students are worse off in terms of the availability of resources. In this article I will determine whether distance students should, in this respect, be worse off than on‐campus students. In particular I will focus on whether or not, in certain circumstances, the principle of utility, which states that it is better for people to be better off, takes precedence over the principle of equality.

Has Ali dissolved the gamer’s dilemma?

In this paper I will evaluate Ali’s dissolution of the gamer’s dilemma. To this end the dilemma will be summarized and Ali’s dissolution formulated. I conclude that Ali has not dissolved the dilemma (at least not fully).