Cpetruz1’s Weblog

Haeberle begins his essay by posing some questions on the issue of morality within virtual reality. His key question is whether the standards and ethics of actual reality should be imposed on virtual reality, or if each reality is an entity unto itself? He addresses the common assumption that virtual reality is simply a game, claiming that there is actually one ultimate game: life. Therefore, it can be assumed that everything in our lives plays a part in this continual game. To this respect, Haeberle breaks everything down into two types of games: finite and infinite. With finite games, there is a rigid set of rules that needs to be followed, and a time limit on when the game will come to an end. However, with infinite games, there is a more flexible structure. Rather than following a particular set of rules, the players define the game for themselves, deciding how it should be played and when it will end (if it ever ends).  Using Haeberle’s model, it becomes apparent that virtual reality is more of an infinite game. The individuals interacting with virtual reality have the option of how they want to “play”, even maintaining the ability to create their own character, therefore manipulating the actual player. When it comes to the actual ethics of the game, everything depends on the individual player. People are only able to do what they know, so if the players are the people who shape the rules of an infinite game, then they will change depending on the ethics and personal history of the actual players. Yet, Haeberle addresses another problem with ethics inside virtual reality: not all individuals are able to distinguish the boundary between reality and virtual reality (if one even exists). Therefore, they struggle in determining the ethics within the game as opposed to the ethics of reality. This comes in particularly useful when analyzing violence within video games. Haeberle argues that he doesn’t believe in eradicating violence with a purpose: for example, games where the violence advances the story or the movement of the player. However, he sees killing without motive as a dangerous trend that could begin within virtual reality. Personally, I think any and all violence in virtual reality is dangerous, regardless of it apparent purpose. If we start trying to justify violence in virtual reality, and we simultaneously claim that virtual reality mimics our actual lives, then aren’t we beginning to justify all violence in our everyday lives? One thing Heaberle claims is for certain: “it is impossible for a set of ethical standards to not exist when humans are involved”. Therefore, ethics must exist within virtual reality, as they are a human entity.