How do we know if something is right or wrong? Is it as simple as a correlation to good or bad? Is this ethical differentiation innately recognized or a result of conditioning? While the matter of morality often has somewhat of a consensus, the borders to these questions remain undeclared.
Upon the influx of modern issues, modern solutions may be useful in providing answers to these unresolved moral inquiries. Consequentialism is a moral theory that states an action is right if it results in the best objective consequences. While this philosophy provides a foundation for distinguishing between right and wrong, it fails to
- Address the subjective volatility of these decisions: An individual may attribute the consequences of their actions with more good than another individual would resulting in an intrinsic ethical dilemma.
- Relies on subsequent judgment: Decisions must be put into action before they can be determined as right or wrong.
On the foundation of consequentialism, Virtual Reality has the potential to fulfill these deficiencies in identifying right vs. wrong as it relates to good and bad.
The unique personal experiences we undergo as individuals directly influence how we make decisions. This poses a challenge when it comes to determining a universal standard for ethics. How do we conquer these subjective differences to establish a basis for right vs. wrong? The computer-generated environment that Virtual Reality works upon can help answer this question in its ability to simulate an immersive experience for each individual user. This technology has the potential to surmount subjective differences and reveal unique patterns of moral decision-making. VR can be applied in this way to create a basis for what defines right and wrong as it relates to good and bad.
Consequentialism depends on the aftermath of a decision to determine its ethicality; Understanding the extent of consequences a decision may produce first requires a decision to be put into action. If we are unable to know the results of our choices without first making a choice, how are we to fully envision the extent of these consequences? Virtual Reality simulates an alternative reality that doesn’t work with the same permanence as the reality we are used to. This technology allows one to act without suffering any concrete consequences. VR thus allows for us to experiment with decisions in order to analyze the respective repercussions. The consequences can be unveiled without having to be carried out, providing ethical bounds to understanding what is right and wrong.
In a world that finds stability in the notion of cause and effect, consequentialism is the primary tool for distinguishing right from wrong. Although Virtual Reality strengthens this moral theory, the discrepancies between the “real world” and a virtual one are highly criticized. How can an entirely computer-generated world be employed to define substantial moral concepts? While this is a reasonable assertion, how are we to affirm that the real world is any different than the one virtual reality creates? David Chalmers addresses the uncertainty of our realities in Reality+, using the simulation hypothesis and technophilosophy to support his main argument that “virtual realities are genuine realities.” Questioning our own reality expands on why Virtual Reality is directly pertinent to the real world. In the case of Consequentialism, VR possesses advantageous qualities in accounting for subjectivity and being of temporary existence. The mitigation of these shortcomings provides a base to understand right from wrong relative to moral agency.
These ethical applications of Virtual Reality that Chalmers exhibits help to define what practices may, by way of VR, be conducted to determine how we know right from wrong. For example, a reality can be simulated in which one must make a choice between throwing a soda pack holder in the trash or on the ground. Based on the individual’s decision, Virtual Reality could deduce compelling information regarding how people understand right from wrong. This technology could then take the individual through the consequences of their choice (increase of microplastics, animal harm, pollution, etc.) additionally functioning as a preventative instrument.
While many may feel uneasy at the parallels of our reality to a virtual one, this proximity allows a new grasp on value and ethics relative to answering the question of what is right and wrong. If “virtual and augmented minds are genuine minds” (Introduction, xx), they can be used to simulate how genuine minds may act in an ethical situation. Thus, virtual reality does not equate to a fake reality, it is simply a different type of reality.
Virtual Reality is only a tool to help us get somewhere, it is not the end all be all answer. While we can visualize the sequence of effects, there is no way to declare that they are for certain without also accounting for human subjectivity. This uncertainty is an inevitable risk when using Virtual Reality but does not entirely negate its utility when it comes to discerning right vs. wrong. Virtual Reality should be applied only to particular situations where it is a beneficial agent not one that creates a uniform response neglecting the human intricacies of ethical problems.
Using Virtual Reality myself allowed me to visualize the ethical instances where using VR, AR, or MR would be appropriate. My own immersion into a virtual world demonstrated to me how VR technology can replicate the same feelings as reality. On the rollercoaster, I felt the same drop in my stomach and butterflies that I did on real rollercoasters. This experience illustrated to me just how closely Virtual Reality can get to triggering realistic emotions and feelings. Although in VR, I was dropping down a rollercoaster beside an expressive goggle-wearing rabbit, I could hear the real-life commentary of my classmates as they reported their own VR experiences. With everyone wearing headsets yet continuing to converse, I wondered how Virtual Reality impacts how we act separately vs. alone. Even when placed alone into virtual worlds, people continued to verbally interact in the real world, demonstrating the social inclination that prevails in spite of diverging virtual realities. This poses interesting ideas about our behavior as humans and raises a possible utility for Virtual Reality to expose the true extent of communal influence. People feel a greater obligation to do “right” as opposed to “wrong” when they are surrounded by people. This convolutes the ethical bounds of right vs. wrong because what’s deemed wrong amongst others may be considered right by oneself. These social expectations can be understood deeper when using virtual reality because one is technically alone although they may virtually be surrounded by people. Is it the presence of other people that make us choose to do the “right” thing or a reflection of being judged? VR is at the forefront of these crossroads because while there may be others around you, in SoloVR, they do not have the consciousness to judge your decisions. Virtual Reality can help expand on the alteration of behavior based on a social context, further conceptualizing the act of electing right or wrong.
The distinct biases of people help to refine what categories of right and wrong should be tested by way of Virtual Reality because some things are too delicate for this technology. Utilizing Virtual Reality when it comes to environmental harm is an example of when VR is highly suitable to aid in learning about right vs wrong. Many people make adverse decisions when it comes to the environment because they are removed from the cumulative consequences of their choices. Virtual Reality could illuminate the effects of choices like deciding to throw a soda pack holder on the ground, equipping people with an empathetic intuition for discerning right from wrong. On the grounds of consequentialism, Virtual Reality thus has the capacity to rectify its’ faults and create an ethical framework for identifying right and wrong.
