Op/Ed: Second Life Ethics
by Alphaville Herald on 27/08/07 at 6:35 am
Gambling, sex, gender-bending, financial fraud: does real life morality apply in SL?
by Victorria Paine
A recurring theme in debates between SL’s denizens about any number of the “hot topics” that divide the community (gambling, sex, gender-bending, financial fraud, you name it) is a fundamental disagreement about what “rules” should apply to any of these activities when they take place on the grid. Typically this difference in perspectives remains unstated, with the various players largely talking past each other, more intent on scoring “points” in the debate by deploying clever witticisms or other rhetorical devices in place of addressing the real underlying issues.
People dance around the main disagreement, choosing instead to bolster their argument with this or that standard of “morality” or “ethics” cribbed from a meatspace context, without realizing that it is this issue in itself that is the thorniest one what moral rules, if any, are appropriate to the kind of reality experienced in SL, and why?
Although material reality is also plagued by debates about appropriate moral rules in its own space, many of us tend to take the moral rules we inherited in our meatspace lives as “givens” to some degree, and there is certainly a utility in that. It helps to create a more cohesive living environment, reduces incidents of social tension and honestly makes life more simple, if constrained in some ways. But looking more deeply at our meatspace moral memes, we can often discern â correctly or not â a certain underlying logic or rationale for a given moral rule.
where is the logic to our moral memes?
To take a familiar example, the widespread tradition of marital sexual exclusivity, as a general moral rule in meatspace, can be explained without regard to varying religious traditions, either by reference historically to the need to preserve property within one bloodline and the risk that sexual activity outside of this bloodline posed to that inheritance scheme, to the more contemporary concern about the “welfare of children”, or to an assumed universal human predisposition towards jealousy (something which, curiously, was reflected in the criminal law of many countries traditionally, by recognizing that an act of murder committed when a spouse found (typically his) spouse “in flagrante delicto”, the penalty for the murder was significantly reduced). And, of course, there is the general appeal made to the stabilizing effect of stable families on social cohesion as a whole â whether real or imagined. In any case, we can examine these moral rules, the context in which they develop and continue to subsist, and discern, in many cases, a “rationale” for them.
what moral rules, if any, apply to the reality experienced in SL?
The issue is to what extent these moral rationales are justified â if at all â in Second Life. Taking the example of sexual fidelity between two SL AVs, do any of the meatspace rationales apply? Certainly there is no historical basis for the control of the inheritance of SL property that would be impacted in the slightest by sexual infidelity in a SL relationship. Similarly, the “welfare of children” argument seems not to apply due to the very rare occurrence of children and families “playing” SL together as a reflection of their meatspace family units.
Perhaps the jealousy principle applies â and I suspect that emotionally it does in many cases â but is jealousy, taken alone, a justification for a moral principle that would, generally speaking, be assumed to apply to everyone? And finally, can it really be said that sexual infidelity between AVs contributes to a lack of cohesion in SL society in general, particularly when taken in the context of very enhanced individual freedom and expression that is one of the hallmarks of SL to begin with? Personally, I don’t find any of these rationales particularly compelling in the context of a virtual metaverse like SL â they appear weak, when grafted onto this context. Of course, I’m not speaking of the validity of individual commitments here â those are always a matter of personal freedom â but rather of the notion that the memes that underlie these commitments could or should be seen as being “normative” in the context of SL.
does SL spillover in RL mean meatspace rules should apply?
An important objection can be raised, however. It relies largely on the relationship between SL and meatspace in general, and specifically for certain members of the SL community. The argument is basically that because activities in SL can have a spillover impact into meatspace lives (to take an example relevant to the one I’ve chosen above, someone who is married in the material world may have a relationship in SL with someone else, and this relationship causes tension in her meatspace marriage, or even causes it to dissolve), the same “rules”, morally speaking, should apply to SL as we assume apply in material reality. Essentially, the argument is that since, for some people, SL and the material world bleed into each other, the accepted norms of the material world should be assumed to be normative for SL as well.
While I can see the point of the latter objection, I’m not terribly persuaded by it. It seems to me that it relies on the very subjective (and erroneous) assumption that most SL participants are bleeding their SL and material lives together, or that most SL participants are not capable of having two separate lives, under two separate sets of rules. This flies in the face of reality.
Even in meatspace, we are very accustomed to contextual rulesets for behavior (one way at home, one way in the office, one way among friends, etc.), so it seems to me that the human ability to contextualize behavioral memes is quite well developed and largely without ill effects. More fundamentally, perhaps, it’s clear that there are many people who do not combine their material and virtual lives, but separate them, and as a result it would seem tenuous at best to suggest that material world moral memes should be applied to such persons â which would, in effect, happen if the meatspace rules were to be seen as “normative” in SL.
your world, your imagination, your context-sensitive morals?
The moniker of SL is “your world, your imagination”. While we have had tremendous examples of creativity and imagination in material ways in SL, we have had considerably less imagination in less tangible elements of the SL experience, and as a result we have the community talking past each other when it comes to many of the divisive issues that periodically get tossed about.
It’s high time that some of the high minds of SL give some serious thought to how we ought to go about creating our world, our imagination, not just with prims, but with ideas as well. We ought to give some thought to the ethics and morality of SL, not in slavish imitation of our meatspace inheritance, but with the same open minds and creativity with which we’ve approached the rest of our SL experiences so that we can gradually come to grips with a set of moral and ethical principles that are creative, dynamic and “native” to the virtual world of SL.
Astonished Reader
Aug 27th, 2007
a very insightful and well written article with far reaching implications.
more’s the pity it’s wasted in this publication and its readership.
Corona
Aug 27th, 2007
Dynamic ethicc and morality – an interesting concept in itself
Personnally i cant see many people ditching their rL moral code ( of whatever form or level it takes) and switching to a new one
for most such things are too ingrained and sub conscious to be changeable
for example – the dispute over the morlaity of some people having a gay lifestyle ( which i s differnt from someone having gay sex – because it is easy to imagine someone being a celibate homosexual
such things are known in the real world – and presumably most people apply their RL opinions to these things as they exist within the framework of SL
however the existence of new forms and possibilities such as furries and non sexual age play – do need a definition in the moral and ethical domain
because at the moment only their detractors have any opinion on these things
ie ‘furfag’ a fairly meaning less term – most likely expressing the uses norrow minded bigotry
the question is who is to be the arbiter of such standards
in RL many claim the authority of non existant deities – (tho that only gives them the roight to dictate their own lifestyle – not those of others – whatever they may think
but in SL if we are to have a moral amnd ethical code
the question must be
why
to what purpose
and to whose benefit ?
Dire Allen
Aug 27th, 2007
Ok the word “Meatspace” is probably one of the dumbest, if not, insulting references to humanity I have ever heard in my life. And very overused might I add.
Ugh “Meatspace”. It’s not even witty. It’s just…. a bad choice of a made of word to describe Real Life. Something tells me that it’s time to get the hell out of this wonderful Second Life Culture I’ve walked into before I start coming up with words to describe the dreg of what I know as Reality… or what reality I may end up having left.
Susan
Aug 27th, 2007
what moral rules, if any, are appropriate to the kind of reality experienced in SL, and why?
Yes, I agree, that’s the common theme in many of the hot topics. We don’t have a shared agreement on what the moral rules are.
There’s lots of reasons why there’s disagreement:
SL users come from all over the world (including the US, Europe and Japan) and have different cultural backgrounds.
Outside in RL, morality is changing rapidly on some issues. For example, in the UK, homosexuality used to be illegal, but now gay or lesbian couples can be in effect married in a civil partnership.
In SL, we can do things that are impossible in RL: you can make your appearance that of an animal, or a child. Our exisiting moral codes don’t cover these kind of things very well.
Actions have very different effects in SL, which gives them a different moral status. “Killing” someone in a video game doesn’t really hurt anyone very much, and isn’t like murdering them.
marilyn murphy
Aug 27th, 2007
i like this editorial.
a lot of the drama encountered in sl is generated by the differing levels of seriousness the individuals involved apply to sl.
i adopted a simplistic moral code. don’t lie, and do no unnecessary harm. i define what is necessary.
Elizabeth Rookwood
Aug 27th, 2007
Seems to me that ethics and morality are qualities of a person, not a place. If I choose a different ethical code for my behavior in SL, it really just shows what my code really is, and what I’ll do when I feel I can get away with it.
Instead of using sexual fidelity as an example, use the example of a “designer” copying and selling the original creation of another. When someone who does this in SL gets outed, the majority of SL community considers it a real breach of SL ethics. Why? It could be argued that one person has suffered real economic harm, and another has gotten undeserved economic benefit and credit for a creation.
Interesting that so many fail to see the harm to real people and relationships that occurs when SL couples have an affair without the consent of their RL partners.
To me the underlying question in any ethical dilemma is “Who will be harmed by this?” If no one will be harmed physically, materially, or emotionally, then it is not an ethical issue. It is no different in SL then in RL.
Nicholaz Beresford
Aug 27th, 2007
My ideas about morales in SL is that they are a personal thing. In RL morale is more or less a code which rules interaction between people, in a space where interaction can mean the application of force or having widespread effects caused by individual behavior (down to risking the extinction of a tribe or family and it’s members by in one way or another undermining the cooperation which ensues the survival [food, income, shelter]).
On the other hand, no real survial-relevant threats exist in SL. There’s hardly a situation which you can’t teleport out of, you don’t die from lack of food or shelter or money.
So the morale boils down to organizing social interaction between individuals and groups. This IS relevant inside these relationships or groups, but I fail to see why different individuals or groups need to subscribe to the same morale.
Most of those hot discussions have, at the core, the attempt to impose personal values upon others. Many people seem to feel threatened by the notion that their personal codex of behavior is not universal, god given or “natural” but merely personal preference and individual styles of behavior.
My World. My Imagination. My values — share with the like minded, allowing the rest to shape their world, imagination and values their way.
Morgana Fillion
Aug 27th, 2007
I think sexual/romantic role play in SL is the area where it’s most likely to have bleedover into real life in proportion to how deceptive the typist is being to their RL partner about their SL activities. If you’re actively hiding what’s happening in SL because you know your partner will regard it as an infidelity, you’re engaging in an infidelity – choosing deception rather than working it out with them exactly what the rules are between you. The deceptiveness is a sign of agreement that this action (whatever it may be) is outside the boundaries of your relationship.
I don’t think there is a flat moral line that in this that’s the same for everyone. Some people are open with their RL partner, everyone is in agreement that what happens in SL doesn’t have RL ramification and all is well. Others are clear that it wouldn’t be that way and avoid relationships in-world. And still others know that this would be defined as infidelity by the other person in their RL relationship (and who else gets as big a say in what that mark is than one’s partner?) and choose to do so anyway… and what is infidelity, if not that?
In other words, it’s not the sex, simulated or otherwise, that marks it as immoral in my opinion – it’s the deceit.
I also wonder if there needs to be some sort of ethical imperative in SL and other virtual spaces to sit down with one’s romantic interest early one and spell out exactly what level each person is playing at. Is this role play? Is it the start of a ‘real’ relationship? What constitutes infidelity here? What is the intent for the future. Is it between avatars or typists?
I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers there, but I do think it’s a good idea to talk it out and not assume that the other person has the same ideas about all of this as you do.
And heh… these are all questions that make me very glad that my SL partner has been my RL partner for the past decade. We actually joined SL specifically to find common space to be together after a career move put geographic space between us, and stayed because SL is fun and interesting on its own terms.
Kryss Wanweird
Aug 27th, 2007
While respecting the profile msg “SL is SL; RL is RL” and it’s variants, I can’t avoid the association with DID.
Aurel Miles
Aug 27th, 2007
The amount of feedback on this piece proves it is neither wasted on this audience nor a trivial concern.
This is one of the best things I’ve read in the Herald. I would like to see us all asking these questions and engaging in this sort of debate more often.
As a writer in SL and in RL I have seen many variations on the idea of a relationship in Flatland. In my opinion, anytime you participate in a field of communication with other human beings you’re emotional, social and intellectual perspective shifts – or it should, (even if only for a moment)otherwise you’re not really participating are you?
The issue of ethics in both worlds interests me very much. To Marilyn Murphy’s question of whether or not a person’s action harms someone else as a guidepost I would say this – choose you actions based on whether or not they would help someone – and that includes you. That, to me, is the miracle of humanity in either of these beautiful and fascinating worlds. I have seen amazing things happen when people choose their actions based on positives rather than on “what they can get away with” or whether or not something has a net zero effect. In any event we are limited by the fact that every action judged this way is being judged by the person engaging in it – an impossible measure by any means. (and one that many a lawyer has heard as a weak personal defense for the indefensible)There is always the law of unintended consequences as I’m sure everyone here has experienced for themselves.
Thank you for this piece – I hope we can all engage in this kind of debate more in the future.
am
ps – I dislike meatspace as well maybe organasphere would do?
Inigo Chamerberlin
Aug 27th, 2007
One phrase says it all really – ‘do unto others…’ – enough said?
No, I’m not at all religious, but it’s still a good yardstick for judging your own behavior, and that of others.
And never, ever, forget there is a real person behind an AV…
Elizabeth Rookwood
Aug 27th, 2007
I agree this is an interesting and undiscussed topic and people are raising interesting points. A few reactions…
“So the morale boils down to organizing social interaction between individuals and groups. This IS relevant inside these relationships or groups, but I fail to see why different individuals or groups need to subscribe to the same morale.”
It seems to me that ethics particularly come into play when we are dealing with strangers and outsiders. If you are within your group, you know what the norms are. What happens when you are faced with how to treat a stranger or someone outside of your group? Cultures commonly accord outsiders a lower level of being. It is acceptable to demean them, steal from them, exploit or kill them. Doing so may even be considered virtuous.
If different groups are going to peacefully coexist and enjoy SL, there needs to be some kind of ethical glue to hold it together. Part of the great experiment of SL is working out what that is.
Yes, I vote for death to the “meatspace” metaphor. Organasphere is certainly an improvement.
GreenLantern Excelsior
Aug 27th, 2007
I was going through my SL Landmarks folder to get rid of landmarks I didn’t need, and found one I didn’t recognize. When I visited the location, it quickly became apparent that it was a virtual brothel. Planning to delete the landmark, I chatted with the lady who was on duty just to be polite. Finally she asked me whether I was just visiting or looking for “something special.” When I told her that I probably shouldn’t be there, she tempted me by saying “no one needs to know” what goes on in the back rooms of the place. Of course, in the end one person would know what happened there, and that person would be me. So I left, and deleted the landmark.
SL is the same as RL in that you are interacting with real people in both locations. In RL, do you treat someone badly just because you will never see them again, and they don’t know who you are? If you do, then you will probably treat people the same way in SL, and vice versa. If you think that you can have one set of morals and ethics in RL and a different set in SL, you are lying to yourself. If you’re immoral and unethical in SL, then you’re immoral and unethical in life, period. “No one needs to know” is not a good basis for ethical conduct.
Victorria Paine
Aug 27th, 2007
Thanks for the comments everyone!
A few responses ….
“but in SL if we are to have a moral and ethical code
the question must be
why
to what purpose
and to whose benefit ?”
Well, I think another commenter answered this pretty well when writing this:
“If different groups are going to peacefully coexist and enjoy SL, there needs to be some kind of ethical glue to hold it together. Part of the great experiment of SL is working out what that is.”
That’s the point, really. It’s true that in our own little SL subworlds we have our own codes – we know that. The issue is that on the broader level these can really clash, a lot, based on no agreement about underlying ethics between members of the different subworlds. That’s the idea of my piece, and what I was trying to raise, as a question.
———-
“I think sexual/romantic role play in SL is the area where it’s most likely to have bleedover into real life in proportion to how deceptive the typist is being to their RL partner about their SL activities. If you’re actively hiding what’s happening in SL because you know your partner will regard it as an infidelity, you’re engaging in an infidelity – choosing deception rather than working it out with them exactly what the rules are between you. The deceptiveness is a sign of agreement that this action (whatever it may be) is outside the boundaries of your relationship.”
Yes, but that’s really, to me, a question of material world moral rules. While it may be true that this could be considered “cheating” by material world moral memes, if the same were to happen between two SL avatars, it’s not clear to me that the material world memes should apply to that kind of context. So while I take your point about material world impacts, I don’t think that this really shapes what is ethical for a relationship that takes place solely in the context of the virtual world.
———–
“While respecting the profile msg “SL is SL; RL is RL” and it’s variants, I can’t avoid the association with DID.”
It’s not quite the same thing, though. As we all know there are two ways of approaching SL: as an extension of your material world persona, or as something else. To suggest that everyone who is choosing the “something else” option has DID is quite extraordinarily presumptuous, to say the least.
————
Since many people seem to dislike the term “meatspace”, I’ll try to use “material world’ in the future. No, I won’t use “real life” because to me SL is also “real”, but simply not material. “Organasphere” is an interesting term, but to me it connotes some kind of artificially constructed dome at an organic food festival or display at a trade fair or something — seems too clunky to me to be of use, to be honest, so I think I will stick with the more targeted term “material world”, and distinguish that from “virtual world”.
Morgana Fillion
Aug 27th, 2007
I like ‘material world’ – that’s a good distinction.
And fair point that my comment addresses solely the virtual/material cross over, but I think that the same guidelines apply – the ethical choice is whatever agreement the parties in the relationship have decided they are, and you can’t assume what those are without honest discussion. A deliberate choice not to have the discussion because you’re pretty sure you won’t like the other person’s response is a red flag.
And definitely, in SL, it isn’t safe to assume what level of relationship the other person is attempting to be involved in – a good role player will play passion and ‘one and only’ monogamy very well and yet may be appalled to discover their partner believes that means something beyond a good role play scenario.
Mercia McMahon
Aug 27th, 2007
Having taught a little bit of Ethics in the past, there are two points that would be made from an academic viewpoint. It is very rare to find in a university context (Thoughtspace?) the phrase “morality or ethics.” Morality tends to be viewed as the mores of a society or community (including religious communities). But morality is just one model of ethics (namely that there is an over-arching set of rules that everyone agrees on). In fact the first part of most university ethics course is Ethical Models. Several models of Ethics are operating in these posts, Marilyn proposes the Google ethic “Do no harm.” Inigo is using what I think is termed Social Constuctivist Ethics (or negatively Social Engineering). Kryss’s response to Marilyn’s Google ethic, sounds like Utilitarian Ethics (what is most useful for society). Elizabeth appears to be operating with the Ethical Relativism in her first post and then the Ethic of the Authentic Self second time round. The point of this impromptu tutorial? That Ethics has no one meaning so relativism is the (non-)rule of thumb even in RL. The one Ethical model that I hope SL avoids is the disease known as The Hardening of the Oughteries.
Merica
Ava Staheli
Aug 27th, 2007
It is a very interesting topic, and I think it waited for articulation.
I think ethical standards don’t make sense related to roleplay or to business. Both scopes are regulated environments. Already there is a lot of negotiation about good or bad roleplay and about L$ as well.
Not until you are just an avatar, dwelling virtual reality like SL, you are confronted with ethical questions. As far as I know SL brought up this situaton to us. In my opinion being inworld has aspects of pristine carnival. But it goes further.
Our conventional ethics don’t fit.
I can tp any moment, anywhere. This alone frees from a lot of responsibility. No police can get me, no prison might punish me. Within seconds I can be another avatar. So what? For good measure I can be a woman, a man, a furry, a centaur or a roboter. This is another issue which makes relations less obligeing. Furthermore an avatar can’t be hurt physically; this seems to give a lot of freedom too. But as we all have seen, emotions experienced through your avatar can be very intense, positive as negative as well.
Imagine the future of virtual reality. What might be ahead.
There can and will be technical ways of destroying anonymity. As we all know certain aspects, present in SL before, have been oppressed. So RL eases the question of ethical standards anyway. At least this gives me a real bad flavor.
In effect it is straightforward this new situation which fascinates me about SL. To me it’s like entering a white spot on the map.
It is more than a game. I like it.
I try to: respect, enjoy, explore (in this order)
*unsure of hitting the right tone throughout the whole text, not being a native speaker*
Thank you for your article, Victorria. It came the right moment to initiate reflection after the first month in SL
Victorria Paine
Aug 27th, 2007
“And fair point that my comment addresses solely the virtual/material cross over, but I think that the same guidelines apply – the ethical choice is whatever agreement the parties in the relationship have decided they are, and you can’t assume what those are without honest discussion. A deliberate choice not to have the discussion because you’re pretty sure you won’t like the other person’s response is a red flag.
And definitely, in SL, it isn’t safe to assume what level of relationship the other person is attempting to be involved in – a good role player will play passion and ‘one and only’ monogamy very well and yet may be appalled to discover their partner believes that means something beyond a good role play scenario.”
Indeed. I think that’s a good pragmatic guideline for ethical encounters, at first blush, but I’d like to reflect more on the underpinnings for it … I may try to follow this article with some specific cases to open up the debate/discussion to specific issues — something that tends to be easier to focus on, I think.
“That Ethics has no one meaning so relativism is the (non-)rule of thumb even in RL. The one Ethical model that I hope SL avoids is the disease known as The Hardening of the Oughteries.”
The relatavist perspective — but not the only one. Thanks for your comment, though.
Second Lulz Vigilante
Aug 27th, 2007
It’s all very Jungian. People will often act differently on the internet than they do in RL. Anonymity lends itself to that. Some people don’t want to be constrained by RL ethics. Some do. Caveat emptor.
Faerie
Aug 27th, 2007
The one ethic or moral code that we need to live by within SL is:
“Do nothing that you know might cause harm to another”.
shockwave yareach
Aug 28th, 2007
VR should have some ethics, certainly. But as it’s not a real world, but a videogame, the ethics take on a cartoon quality.
SL is not RL. Period. Banging 6 girls at once while pink unicorns egg us on as we all float in a flying castle simply has NO reallife analog. Likewise, murder, theft, or other antisocial behaviors aren’t quite the same either. So I’ll boil them down to basic tenets.
Sex: If you think what you are doing is wrong, then it is wrong. If you can have cartoon sex in SL without messing up your RL, then have at it. Details about quantity or deviations are irrelevant so long as your playtime doesn’t damage meattime. Keep your RL and your SL seperate and you can pretty well go as far as your own feelings will let you. But if you aren’t comfortable with it then don’t do it.
Murder: Can’t kill what isn’t alive. Can’t do anything to someone else without their consent, save for caging or orbitting. It is no different than wasting monsters in Doom. If you want to play and your opponent wants to play, then play. If the opponent doesn’t want to play, find another playmate.
Theft: Ethics here depend on whether or not it is in character or out of character. It’s somewhat hard to steal from strangers. Thus you mostly have familiar friends as potential marks. If you can gyp them in the context of a game, then you are playing the game you mutually agreed upon. It’s like gambling. But if you are taking stuff with RL value or not roleplaying with the group, then you are in the wrong.
Gambling: heh. Not much of an issue anymore in SL. But if you want to play games of chance and you only wager what you can afford to lose, have at it. It’s the same in RL. Anyone can buy one lotto ticket. But buying 10,000 probably will put the RL finances in jeopardy. Be responsible for your SL and RL wealth.
Drinking, smoking, toking grass: Not real. Remember? Neither is carjacking in Grand Theft Auto.
Dancing: Put giraffes in the air! Put giraffes up in the air… If only my RL bod could move continuously for 2 hours. Unless you attend Baylor in SL, wiggle that butt all you like.
PoleDancing: See Dancing.
Escorting: Immoral? Nah. If cartoon sex is okay, then how is exchanging money for something you’ve decided is okay, NOT okay? If a comic book is acceptable then how is paying for a comic book bad? Again, if it bugs you, then don’t partake. But in general it is nothing but pretend people making pretend pillow talk with pretend partners. If you can seperate real from not real, have fun. If not, do something else. At the same time though, if you want to roleplay being an escort, then fuss not about some people’s reactions. If you want to roleplay then take the bad with the good.
Zippo Lighter
Aug 29th, 2007
I’m all FOR the continued use of “meatspace.” It’s a simple, honest and direct statement about what we (at least any of us who have not transcended “meatspace”) are really about at the simplest, most direct level. To try and pretty it up with euphemism is just such a predictably meatspace thing to try to do. It is almost essential to keep in mind that outside of meatspace we could be dealing with anything from a transparent and crude Eliza-type “AI” script, to someone who considers flaming and “griefing” to be an art form.
If you want the illusion that you know what you are dealing with, stick to meatspace and meatspace alone — and get blood samples while you’re at it. That Police Benevolent Association guy calling you from a blind number might SEEM like he’s meatspace and oh so real, but chances are he’s a boiler-room operator preying on your gullibility. If you actually talk to telemarketers for any other reason than yanking their chains, PLEASE do yourself a favor and stay out of virtual worlds, because, at best, you’ll only get your feelings hurt.
Moody Loner (MoodyLoner Korobase)
Aug 30th, 2007
Okay.
Well.
Death: Fell down a well and died the other day. Really pissed me off. What’s bad is I can’t remember the sim I was wandering when I got killed, so I don’t know if it was a trap or a critter that killed me. Still, no harm, no foul – but the next weeping well I see is getting the ol’ laser screwdriver treatment.
Sex: Umm, this is a game. What one pixellated avatar is “doing” to another pixellated avatar is, at best, interactive erotica and at worst boring poseball tours. That would be like me getting jealous over the topless shopkeeper woman in Champions of Norrath.
When I can lightly brush my hand over my lover’s shoulders in SL, then you can talk to me about sex and how I’m hurting my RL. Now it’s barely a cartoon version of what some fourteen-year-old boy thinks is sex.
Would I pose nude? Sure, I have been told I have a very good av and I don’t mind if people enjoy it. Would I escort? No, only because I don’t see the point. And I do try to be respectful of the feelings of others because they probably don’t have the same views that I do – namely that it isn’t sex and this isn’t me.
Morals: In SL, I can be a woman, a man, a talking horse, a robot, a dragon, or a floating eyeball. Must I have a set of morals and ethics for each avatar? And must they be the same ones? And why?
My thought that this is Much Ado About Nothing is belied by the length of my response and the number and quality of the responses. Guess I will keep reading Second Life Herald after all.
Moody Loner (MoodyLoner Korobase)
Aug 30th, 2007
Huh.
I ditch this response, type another long response giving props to the people who said what I pretty much did, preview and post, and my original response is the one that posts.
Hmm.
Anyway, yeah – my second post was sounding a little less dismissive after I realized that the article I’m researching on landlord/tenant issues in SL deals with this. After all, it’s all fun and games until someone loses a marriage – or real money.
And yes, it took a while – I haven’t had my coffee yet.
meh
Aug 31st, 2007
Ethics?
Why want to have something like ‘ethics’ in SL, if even in RL most peoples vieuws of what is ethical is so screwed up, even satan would go “Now hold on… WTF?”
Flying a plane into a building is unethical, while going into another country, bomb it to bits and kill and torture people just cause they don’t like you for doin exactly that, is ethical?
It’s ethical to kill and mame individuals, just for one’s own profit, yet killing and maming another individual isn’t, just cause it happens to be the same species you are?
It’s ethical to light a cross on fire in someone’s front yard and scream for their blood, just because they have a different colour on the outside? Or, on the flip side, call out to one’s fellow people to “Kill the white opressors”?
It’s ethical to deny the right to two people to declare eachother’s love officially for everyone and the state, just because they happen to be of the same gender?
Is it ethical to waste billions on creating more and more deathdealing tools, while people are starving in the streets?
Is it ethical to deny a whole CONTINENT theright to use a little latex tube to prevent millions of deaths, just because we should “Go forth and Muliply”?
Please. SL could very well do without etchics, they’re meaningless anyways unless everyone follows the same ethics. And with an international place like SL, that is not gonna happen.
Unless of course one country goes to more and more countries, pick a fight and decide they have the right to tell others how to live. Which actually, I can see happening.
I think it’s unethical to try and impose one’s ethics on anyone other then themselves.
The only ethic I could see that would be fitting for the whole of SL, is “Don’t be an asshole”. But that would mean at least HALF of SL’s population breaking that rule by default.