Darrell West, a Brookings scholar, believe it or not, queries, “What happens when virtual reality crosses into unethical territory?” It is the topic of his essay, but the question is self-answering. Virtual reality is, by definition, not real. Ethics is about determining right and wrong in reality, in interaction with real people, real consequences and real dilemmas in the real world.
West doesn’t seem to grasp that, and neither, according to him, does the playwright of a work being presented in my metaphorical back yard: Jennifer Haley, who authored “The Nether” playing at the Woolly Mammoth Theater in Washington, D.C. West tells us that Haley
“…explores the troubling questions that arise when the main character known as Papa uses advanced software to create a fantasy environment where adult clients molest young children and then kill them…. Should there be limits on human fantasies involving heinous thoughts? Do fantasies that remain in the private realm of someone’s brain warrant any rules or regulations by society as a whole? Even if the bad behavior rests solely in one individual’s private thoughts, does that thinking pose a danger to other people? For example, there is some evidence that repeated exposure to pornography is associated with harmful conduct towards women and that it legitimizes violent attitudes and behaviors. Does that evidence mean we should worry about misogynistic or violent virtual reality experiences? Will these “games” make it more acceptable for people to engage in actual harmful behaviors?”
These are not troubling questions or even difficult questions, unless one is intrigued by the Orwellian offense of “thought crime.” Here, for the edification of West, Haley, those nascent brainwashers out there who find his ethically clueless essay thought-provoking of any thought other than: “How the hell did this guy get to be called a “scholar”?, let me provide quick and reassuring answers to West’s questions:
Should there be limits on human fantasies involving heinous thoughts?
Of course not. Your fantasies and thoughts are nobody’s business. The most ethical human being who ever lived may have entertained himself with thoughts of murder and mayhem, and that changes how that human being’s life should be assessed no more than it should make us feel better about Hitler that he secretly dreamed of ending world hunger.
He did you know. No, really.
Do fantasies that remain in the private realm of someone’s brain warrant any rules or regulations by society as a whole?
No.
Even if the bad behavior rests solely in one individual’s private thoughts, does that thinking pose a danger to other people?
Thinking and thoughts pose no danger to anyone at all, unless the thinker doesn’t have sufficient commitment to ethical conduct and values to avoid turning those thoughts into reality, which would mean that the bad behavior no longer rests solely in that individual’s private thoughts, taking it out of the conditions posed by the question.
There is some evidence that repeated exposure to pornography is associated with harmful conduct towards women and that it legitimizes violent attitudes and behaviors. Does that evidence mean we should worry about misogynistic or violent virtual reality experiences?
Worry all you want. Worry about football, worry about video games, worry about Quentin Tarantino movies where everybody shoots everybody else. A fantasy may be about unethical conduct, but fantasy doesn’t do anything. An individual who acts on ugly fantasies has engaged in unethical conduct, and he or she is accountable, not the fantasies.
Will these “games” make it more acceptable for people to engage in actual harmful behaviors?”
No.
I’m glad I could clear that up.
Are you at all concerned that the alleged intellectuals of the left are thinking about justifications for controlling thought and fantasies? I am.
There’s nothing wrong with them thinking about it, though…
________________________
Pointer: Instapundit
Ethics Alarms 
But wait: I thought it’s the guns’ fault, and their manufacturers’…or, maybe, the NRA’s?
That Second Amendment really spawns some bad thoughts, doesn’t it?
Clear an concise pointing out of obvious bullshit. Thank you Jack.
Anyone who entertains serious thoughts of virtual reality violence linking with real world violence needs to be labeled a quack and ignored at least. We have actual problems to worry about, and last time I checked me going on a killing rampage in a Battle ground in World Of Warcraft hasn’t made me, or anyone else who the state would identify as mentally stable for that matter, any more liable to start hacking people up at wal-mart.
I know much of the article pertains to a deeper, scarier train of thought (ie. thought crime as you spotted and pointed out instantly), but particularly the bit about VR crimes gets my goat every time.
My guess would be that one of the ‘thought crimes’ they would push for is actively resisting whatever they think up. In other words, disagreeing with them.
The topic here is only indirectly the fantasies that occupy one’s private thoughts, but rather the stories and images that are transmitted through the virtual reality medium. This is not even an academic discussion. The same technology used to create blue horse people has already been used to create photo-realistic pornography of fictional children. While plainly unethical to produce or consume, when does it become unethical to interfere with the practice? Where should the legal limits be placed?
While no one has or should have jurisdiction over one’s private thoughts, purchasing pornography of simulated children is no longer strictly within the realm of private fantasy. There are real ethical and legal questions that the critic could have raised, and that we as a society need to address.
Yip. Google for instance the cartoon child pornography prosecutions.
Which were unconstitutional and absurd.
By the way, did you mean “Yup” as in “Righteo!” Or “Yip,’ as in “Ouch!”?
I did mean it to indicate a friendly kind of agreement.
On the matter of criminalizing purely simulated images, I fully concur. While producing or consuming such images should not result in criminal prosecution, they are still a matter of strict social liability, similar to racism. One could not reasonably expect to remain employed, for instance, if such consumption were revealed…
The issue with virtual reality pornography becomes murkier when considering the sources of inspiration for the ‘cartoon’ children depicted. While it is possible to create digital characters from scratch, this is expensive and time consuming work to achieve photo realism. In major productions, studios use scans of real persons as a starting point.
Purveyors of child-themed pornography cannot be reasonably expected to act ethically out of good will. They will push the limits of the law, and use non-sexual images as a basis for digital production if they could do so without consequence.
Should parents legally be able to sell non-sexual images of their children to be animated for sexual consumption? Sell the image as part of a composite image of a child in a simulated sexual depiction? Sell a body scan used for a digital avatar in a mainstream film? Ethically, this is a clear “NO!”, but legally, what could or should be done? I do not believe the answer is obvious, and requires considerable thought to justly answer.
The author of the critique asked questions that revealed his ignorance of ethics and privacy. Digitally produced pornography, however, does open new ways of exploiting children. Whether this exploitation could be outlawed ethically and/or constitutionally requires careful consideration. The author asked the wrong questions, but there are questions that need to be asked and answered in this brave new world.
“One could not reasonably expect to remain employed, for instance, if such consumption were revealed…”
But that’s not a fair test. This is a theme here, with people who violate confidences using behind closed doors words and conduct that are only a problem if revealed to those who have no right to know about them. How many citizens would not have employment difficulties if their strangest thoughts, ugliest pleasures, cruelest words and most perverted fantasies were emblazoned on their CVs?
” One could not reasonably expect to remain employed, for instance, if such consumption were revealed…”
Why?
I believe their is more than the “ick” factor when it comes to pornography of simulated children. It is certainly not something that society should endorse as normal or healthy, even while not criminalizing it. Certainly, discreet lawful private behavior should remain in confidence, but I am uncertain how an employer ignores and treats an employee fairly given such a revelation whatever the circumstances. At a minimum, it is difficult to believe that an individual who consumes pornography of simulated children, does not or has never consumed pornography harming actual children.
Granted, this is a difficult problem, that makes treatment for those with a sexual attraction towards children very difficult to provide. Pedophilia is a radioactive socially, and many fear seeking treatment for fear of being reported, even though failing to get treatment increases their chances of actual molestation or consumption of child pornography. Revealing this predilection too easily destroys credibility. How does society best balance respect for private struggles with protecting children? Ideally, it should follow something like attorney-client privilege, but even that has limits.
The question of criminalizing private fantasy being easy, perhaps trivial to answer and reject, there are still big ethical and social questions that must be addressed.
At a minimum, it is difficult to believe that an individual who consumes pornography of simulated children, does not or has never consumed pornography harming actual children.
Why? Why is that not like saying that you can’t believe that someone who kills people in video games hasn’t watched snuff films?
“I am uncertain how an employer ignores and treats an employee fairly given such a revelation whatever the circumstances.”
They often don’t: so what? Behavior as harmless as cross dressing would have the same effect, as would many, many, fantasies and fetishes. Pure ick.
Sexual attraction to imaginary children is not the same as sexual attraction to real children. How do you know that virtual child rape doesn’t prevent real child rape? In that case, it would be ethical.
“Sexual attraction to imaginary children is not the same as sexual attraction to real children. “
But that isn’t the distinction you need to make for your argument.
I think it would be better to say “though sexual attraction to imaginary children is not the same as sexual attraction to real children… Neither is the same as acting on that sexual sexual attraction to real children”
Right.
As Ed Morrisey asked, what’s next, finding novels unethical? How about history? Frankly, I wonder about anyone who can “enjoy” “The Rape of Nanking.” I threw it across the room after 150 pages and took a shower. The author killed herself, and I wasn’t surprised.
I suppose my point was that someone who is sexually attracted to children isn’t *actively* wrong. No doubt something in their life threw some serious switches the wrong direction leading to some dangerous proclivities. But if a particular individual, so encumbered, was able to resist those urges…well, they ARE NOT wrong.
I just think saying “attraction isn’t the same as conduct” is the real distinction here.
This ethics debate is more or less about whether or not society can control what it deems as “gateway” behavior or “gateway” urges… and where that line is drawn.
Don’t get it. The reason child pornography is illegal is that it involves abuse of real children Creating or consuming child pornography involving CGI children poses none of the same legitimate societal concerns.
There is no justification for criminalizing images of any kind, ever, if images is all they are.
I’m with you on that.
Would you date someone who raped children in a halo-deck? I wouldn’t. I would run away screaming.
This is not killing a fantasy orc in World of Warcraft or Witcher III — which is a fantasy universe. You’re talking about virtual reality. Big difference.
While this conduct could and should not be criminalized, yes it is unethical to rape children in a virtual world. Hell yes. It’s a sliding scale though — on the worst end is raping children, somewhere in the middle is the Grand Theft Auto series, and on the okay end it’s war simulation games where nameless grunts get killed.
And this is coming from a die-hard gamer.
Pure Ick, Beth. My friend’s son plays videogames where he runs down, robs and kills every man woman and child he sees, in as gory a way as possible. He is as kind a young man as you could find. Are you carving out some kind of fantasy child rape special exception? Killing imaginary people is OK, but not raping imaginary children?
Purest ick. Nothing unethical about it.
Would you think it irrelevant if a presidential candidate admitted that he raped kiddos in a virtual reality? Would you think it reflected on his character?
With pornography, there is an acute risk to the actors involved. A legal adult can credibly consent to this risk, but an a minor cannot. Virtualization of the actors removed this acute risk completely.
There is still the chronic risk to users of any from of porn. Viewing porn has been shown to change brain chemistry, and unchecked, can trigger compulsive viewing habits that are harmful to the individual, and thus to a society that depends on the health of its users. Consumption of porn is similar to drug use, although it is a behaviorally induced reaction, rather than an external chemically induced reaction (experiencing this rush is often the motivation for view porn; rarely is it motivated by strictly artistic merits).
Video games, too, pose a similar risk. However, they are ultimately just an extension of childhood play acting. Only in modern elementary schools is shoot out “cops and robbers” or “cowboys and Indians” games considered abnormal.
Would children acting out fantasy rape scenes be healthy and normal?
The obvious answer to this question suggests some material difference between “shoot out” play acting, and sexual fantasy. Thus while video games have a risk of compulsive use, pornography of “video game” characters has some additional risk to it above and beyond.
This is not to say that porn of virtual children should be legally banned; that is criminalizing thought and fantasy. It is a wholly different matter to say that society should implicitly condone it, however. At the very best, it might give an outlet to persons who might otherwise rape a real child, or pay to watch a real child raped on video. But it may also further distort the thinking and isolate the consumers of this product, the very conditions that often lead to consumption of porn featuring real children, or the molestation of real children. There are risks involved to the individual consumers and society. Such users cannot be presumed to be dangerous, but others such as parents have an ethical obligation to be suspicious. Would you let your child be baby sat by a guy who is known to watch photo-realistic simulated child be raped? There is simply more than “ick” factor involved here.
The best status that this product, pornography of virtual children, could have is that similar to cigarettes; legal, but strongly ill advised. It has potential consequences to society, but a society has a greater conflict of protecting freedom of thought and conscience.
Orc Lives Matter
Not in Witcher III. I gleefully kill every monster I encounter.
I agree with your post, but I guess I think that’s the “legal” view on government action, that it shouldn’t be criminalized… but what’s the “ethics” view for someone who is a developer of content?
Is it ethical to produce the slimiest crud out there in order to get that last dollar? I suppose the slant for the view on this question should be ethics in self-restraint and enabling others.
No. But that’s conduct.
Eventually, robots will be mass-produced that allow for all the acting-out of all the weird and evil fantasies that anyone could have – and then, the acting-out will spill over to where real people are harming other real people. I hate to say it, but I don’t think it’s a settled argument (let alone settled law) that thought will never be criminalized. All of us here just might be on the wrong side of history – eventually, if not already. But, meanwhile, I’ll keep working to make my pick-your-genocide app a commercial success.
Facebook buys VR company. Facebook is otherwise in the business of collecting and consuming user data. FBI loves Facebook. Crime exposed on Facebook has lead to real arrests. It follows that if Facebook is massively successful in the VR realm, someone is eventually going to prison over a crime committed in VR. Question is, will said crime involve other real people or not.
Wow, I engaged keyboard before engaging mind, yesterday. I do that too much. I did not think even once about hate crimes, yesterday. Our society has already criminalized thought. Silly me. That little oversight is going to cost me months now, to re-program my genocide app! It’s gonna be hard, figuring out how to commit genocide and yet not commit a hate crime…
Well, we already have the thought police roaming the campuses looking for possible evidence of microagressions and other evidence of lack of political correctness. So Darrell West’s reasoning makes sense in the increasingly dystopian world we inhabit.
The one case where this may start bordering unethical conduct is if the simulation is so realistic that it’s elements develop some sort of consciousness. Being involved in AI and VR as part of my day job, these are crackpot concerns today. Maybe in a century or so, once we figure out the consciousness problem and all that, but for now I just roll my eyes at these questions.
No, Jack. The desire for ultimate power — the ability to control others’ thoughts — is definitely bipartisan. The left just thinks it’s a new thought.
“For example, there is some evidence that repeated exposure to pornography is associated with harmful conduct towards women and that it legitimizes violent attitudes and behaviors.”
[Citation needed]
But if you want a citation to the contrary, I’ve got a few right here, thanks to Scott Alexander: http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/22/social-psychology-is-a-flamethrower/
In addition to getting her ethics wrong, Jennifer Haley has gotten her facts wrong.
So, let’s start my first comment by saying I agree with Jack’s conclusion, at this point in human development, and particularly based on the points Darrell West touches on in his essay (Seriously, he actually has credentials? I’ve seen stronger arguments and essays from kids in middle school).
I do think there are/will be grounds to consider the ethical implications of virtual reality behavior in the future, particularly as technology evolves and the boundary between “interaction with real people, real consequences and real dilemmas in the real world”, and the virtual space becomes more blurry. We already see some of that blurring happening with instances of large scale theft in virtual economies (such as the EVE online heists and banking scams). At the moment, we can still discuss these occurrences as having had ethical meaning, because we recognize that there are actual people on the other end of the avatars that were affected. But will it always be so easy for us to recognize that?
We have seen the levels of abuse that were directed at Microsoft’s Tay experiments, for instance; by arguing that Tay is not a person, one can excuse all of that conduct as not being an ethical issue. But that same behavior could conceivably be aimed at an actual person, who is believed (most likely through ignorance), to not be a real person by the individuals engaging in the action. Indeed, as chatbots like Tay continue to be refined, it is probable that the ability to distinguish between them and an actual human on the other side of the connection will diminish greatly. Does this failure to accurately distinguish the reality of another individual on the receiving end of abuse absolve the abusers of the ethical considerations of their actions, or prevent outsiders from judging those actions within an ethical framework? If it does not, our ethical framework will have to shift at some point, evolving beyond the strict “real people, real consequence, real world” standard most of us apply to it.
Should it ever encompass our thoughts? No. But are all virtual actions strictly analogous to only thought, and will they always remain so? That’s something I am not certain of… and it’s a conversation that does seem like it might be worth having.
Thanks..helpful commentary. Regarding the last: I agree, but the conversation should begin with a rebuttable presumption that virtual actions are still not true conduct, and more analogous to thought than anything else.
This guy is a “scholar” at Brookings? I’d like to see his CV. (Everything else has been said…)
I am trying wrap my head around the article. It seems to be saying that that there is discernible distinction between thought and conduct: “A fantasy is really just the mind’s expression of past, present, and future conduct.” Isn’t this the underlying reasoning behind hate crime laws and the trend impose limiations or punishments on so-called hate speech (which does not exist, as so perfectly detailed by Eugene Volokh on numerous occasions)? This is the same reasoning seeking to ban violent video games. Thought does not necessarily translate into conduct. Scores of people believed that the Columbine shooters were heavily influenced by exposure to shoot-em-up games, even though the link is tenuous at best.
Criticism of this argument appears to fall into the ‘slippery slope’ argument, so ably employed (and meritoriously, I might add) by the NRA on gun restrictions: “If the government restricts assault weapons, that is an incremental step toward gun confiscation.” Yet, the more fundamental rejection of the argument should that there should be no limitations on what goes in the minds of people. A thought, by definition, cannot be the basis for imposing liability, no matter what the social justice warriors think. Articles such as the one linked here only blur the line and help create fuzzy thinking on legal, moral, and ethical issues.
jvb