Virtual fictionalism is the view that virtual reality is a kind of fiction. We imagine that what we see and hear in virtual reality is real, although it is not. The problem with this view is that there are real moral concerns with our use of virtual reality, from violent video games to cases of virtual groping on social platforms. If what we do in virtual reality is just make-believe, the fictionalist cannot explain the real moral harms of our virtual (...) actions. Call this the moral objection to virtual fictionalism. I address the objection in this paper by arguing for a new fictional account of virtual actions. Virtual fictionalists can take virtual actions to be happening within the fiction and consider users to act as characters or actors within the fictional world depicted in the virtual environment. Instead, I argue that virtual actions create fictional representations from outside the fiction; users act in virtual reality as an author might in their work. The alternative I present better addresses the moral objection to virtual fictionalism—it does not conflate the user with a fictional character. Our virtual actions create fictional representations, and we can morally evaluate them as such. (shrink)

Debate over the normativity of virtual phenomena is now widespread in the philosophical literature, taking place in roughly two distinct but related camps. The first considers the relevant problems to be within the scope of applied ethics, where the general methodological program is to square the intuitive (im)permissibility of virtual wrongdoings with moral accounts that justify their (im)permissibility. The second camp approaches the normativity of virtual wrongdoings as a metaphysical debate. This is done by disambiguating the ‘virtual’ character of ‘virtual (...) wrongdoings’. Doing so is supposed to provide illuminating ontological distinctions that inform ethical aspects of the debate. We argue that each approach faces its own set of issues, and as a result, motivates consideration of an alternative. The alternative we suggest turns inquiry concerning the normativity of virtual wrongdoings into a distinctively conceptual question. Rather than asking whether some action is right or wrong, or whether some virtual phenomenon counts as a particular action at all, we argue that research into the normativity of virtual wrongdoings may be guided by reflecting on whether a concept that originated and developed within a non-virtual context should be exported into a foreign virtual domain. We consider this approach and several objections. (shrink)

In this paper a new resolution to the gamer’s dilemma is presented. The first part of the paper is devoted to strictly formulating the dilemma, and the second to establishing its resolution. The proposed resolution, the grave resolution, aims to resolve not only the gamer’s dilemma, but also a wider set of analogous paradoxes – which together make up the paradox of treating wrongdoing lightly.