The Un/Acceptability of Virtual Moral Practices: An Empirical and Ethical Inquiry

This article conjoins a foundation in moral philosophy with an empirical study on the un/acceptability of moral practices in ‘Second Life’ (SL). SL-residents were asked to rank morally charged SL-scenarios in a classification from ‘(most) unacceptable’ to ‘(most) acceptable’ and, while doing so, to reason out loud about their ranking. The analysis presented here focuses on their converging and diverging arguments. Regarding converging arguments, there was consensus on the unacceptability of six scenarios. Research participants believed these scenarios transcend the merely virtual and they subsequently grounded their argumentation in actual principles. They further agreed upon seven scenarios as acceptable; these scenarios were considered as typical features of SL and subsequently were not morally problematized. Regarding other scenarios, no consensus was reached. The author discusses these findings in terms of their ethical implications and in light of current approaches in the field of ‘computer ethics’.