Virtual Worlds and Possible Consequentialism

Since more the more traditional character and experience based ethical theories have limited application for virtual worlds, what basis do we have for defining appropriate behavior? One answer is that we can just wait and see what happens. Over time we will develop experience and over time a community will coalesce that can define appropriate behavior. But there are three problems with this approach. First, during that time when we are developing experience, things will be happening in virtual worlds that may not be to our liking. Second, once standards of virtual world behavior evolve and coalesce they may be very difficult to change. So, we may realize how things ought to be, but be unable to make them that way. Third, since the technology continues to evolve, the requisite experience continues to shift. We may not be able to acquire the requisite experiences until the technology stabilizes and that may be a lot longer than we are willing to wait. Having said all that, there is merit in waiting. In the early days of the web, some people would like to have restricted free speech and impose severe penalties for copyright infringement. That debate is still going on and we shouldn't be enforcing standards until we figure out what those standards ought to be. I don't think waiting is a bad idea. I just don't think it is the best idea. What do I think is the best idea?

Several years ago, I wrote a series of papers in computer ethics in which I introduced an ethical theory which I called possible consequentialism. Unlike the more traditional consequentialist theories that set ethical standards based upon the consequences of an act or rule, possible consequentialism considers possible consequences. This seems to be an appropriate basis for making ethical decisions under the conditions of a rapidly evolving technology where the consequences of any given standard may not be known at the time when the standard needs to be developed. That's all well and good, but how do we know the possible consequences? That is what we will turn to next.

Will Experience Based Ethics Work in a Virtual World?

I don't think there really is such a thing as experience based ethics. What I have done here is to lump together ethical theories that use past behavior and outcomes to determine appropriate ethical behaviors for the future. The most obvious example of this is consequentialist ethics where the ethical quality of an act is determined by the consequences of that act. However, I would also lump deontological ethics into this group as well. Deontological ethics suggest that we have a basic duty as human beings to behave in certain ways. For example, you should always use of people as an end but not a means. This is certainly an important tenat for preserving human dignity. However, I would say, perhpas with a dash of cynicism that this duty is derived from the fact that it has worked well in the past and thus should work well in the future. So, as I said, I lump it together with experience based ethics. And, I do not beleive that experience based ethics can serve as a moral basis for virtual worlds. Why not?

Marshall McLuhan is attributed with the quote that "looking to the past to understand the future is like driving by looking in the rear view mirror". There seems to be contention over whether he said it or not and I'm not even sure if I got the quote exactly right. But the sentiment is clear. We cannot look to the past to understand the future. And if that is the case then experience based ethics are of limited value. So, let us consider the cases when the past is a good guide and when it is not a good guide.

Using the driving analogy, one can see that as long as you don't drive too fast and the road ahead is as straight as the road behind, then one might get away with driving while looking in the rear view mirror. However, if the car picks up speed or if the road is windy then driving by looking in the rear view mirror will not work. Applying this to the future, when the future is coming at us rapidly and when the future is much different from the past, then looking to the past to understand the future will not work. This is the case, I would argue, with virtual worlds. The technological change is coming at us fast and the future will be very different from the past. So looking to the past, which is what experience based ethics does, will not work. Hence, expereince based ethics will not work in a virtual world. Having ruled out both experience based ethics and character based ethics, is there any thing that will work in a virtual world. I think there is. And you will have to stay tuned for the answer.

Will Virtue Ethics Work in a Virtual World?

Virtue ethics is a character based ethical theory that claims, simply, that morally developed people cannot do immoral things. At first this sounds a little odd because it seems to give license to immoral behavior. But, if you think of it as good people trying their best to do the right thing it makes a little more sense. After all, what other standard do we have for developing morals. I am a big fan of virtue ethics because it requires moral development rather than rule following; and it helps us figure out what to do in cases where the rules aren't clear or don't exist. We just have good people trying their best to figure out the right thing. In the ethics of technology this is particularly appropriate since technology seems to create new problems for which we don't have rules. In fact, many years ago I presented a paper at a conference suggesting virtue ethics as a basis for computer ethics. Having said that, I am not sure that virtue ethics would be an appropriate basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world. Why is that?

Virtue ethics was developed in Ancient Greece where people were born into a community and indoctrinated into the values of the community. Moral development was achieved by the citizens of the community with respect to those values. When the educational process was successful (I am certain it was not always) then citizens internalized community values. If community values changed or if new situations arose they would be discussed and debated by citizens in an attempt to develop or adjust values as needed. The key elements for this to work is that you need to have a fairly homogeneous community with a relatively stable set of values and an educational process by which new members are developed morally consistent with that set of stable values. None of these elements hold for virtual worlds.

Virtual worlds are a global phenomenon. Residents from all of the world, from a wide variety of moral and religious perspectives and traditions interact. Trying to abstract a homogeneous set of values for the residents of virtual worlds would be like trying to establish a global code of ethics.
Even if it were possible to do this, you would still have the problem of moral development. When people come to the virtual world they already have their values in place. You do not get them young enough in a virtual world nor do you have enough control over them to attempt to develop them morally consistent with those values. Finally, since virtual worlds are a new phenomenon, the ethics of virtual worlds are still evolving. We don't really know what constitutes good behavior in virtual worlds. So, we do not have a stable set of values to use for moral development.

The point here is that while virtue ethics has a lot to be said for it, and although it may have worked well in Ancient Greece, it is probably not the best moral basis for virtual worlds. Perhaps some day. But not now.

The Moral Basis for Ethical Decision Making in a Virtual World

So far, in our exploration of the ethics of virtual worlds, we have addressed avatar attachment, anonymity, and regulation. I don't mean to imply that this covers the full set of issues. I only mean to say that these are the largest issues that occur to me at the moment. The final one of these issues that I promised to address back when I started this threat was the moral basis of ethical decision making in a virtual world. That is to say, which theories of moral behavior provide the best guidance for ethical decisions?

At the risk of having professional ethicists gnashing their their teeth, I am going to dismiss descriptive theories such as ethical relativism and egoism. They claim to tell us how things are and are of limited value in determining how things should be. I am going to focus on prescriptive theories that tell us how things should be. I do this because virtual world technology is currently evolving and we can have great influence on how they evolve. Consequently, we should focus on how things should be.

Again, at the risk of offending the pros, I am going to group prescriptive ethical theories into two groups: character based and experience based. This is not too far from standard treatments and provides an economical scheme for the argument I wish to make here. Over the next few posts, I will argue that both character based moral theories and experience based moral theories have limitations that may inhibit their usefulness in providing a moral basis for ethical decision making in a virtual world. Then, I will wrap up this thread with a moral perspective that, I believe, overcomes these limitations. It will take, as Colridge said "a willing suspension of disbelief" as we journey into the morality of virtual worlds. But, come along with an open mind and I will try to make it worth your while.