Ignorant Historian

This is the continuation of the paper from yesterday on virtual worlds. I will wrap it up tomorrow with a discussion of community and temptation as they relate to these interactive worlds.

Morality of Interactive Virtual Worlds: Part 2

One desire that is driving the creation and use of virtual worlds is the individual’s desire to be like God, rejecting the appropriate place of man in reference to his Creator. In the virtual world, the user can create according to his desires and be exactly who he wants to be. This allows for the complete rejection of who God has made them to be and helps him to be his own god. This is seen as the advantage that the virtual world has over the real world, one can both imitate the real and overcome it by being free of limitations.[i] The freedom perceived convinces the user that his desires of control in real life are valid and should be pursued.[ii] However, even virtual reality can only feel real when it is like real life, confirming the original creation and order of the world.[iii]

Through participating in an online virtual world, a person can feel like he is transcendent. Of course, there is no actual transcendence in virtual reality, but the perception of control over one’s world is certainly there.[iv] The user is no longer bound by the limits of time or space, but can act outside of these universal human limitations which is what gives the user a perception of the godlike ability of transcendence.[v] In the virtual world, a “ ‘disembodied presence’ is not just possible, it is even desirable.”[vi]

The Gnostic idea of removal of the soul from the fleshly dwelling is clearly manifested in a virtual world where no avatar has a true body. This ideal is a problem for the believer because Christ Himself took on flesh.[vii] The believer should not quickly reject the flesh and most certainly should not perceive the created body as an evil to escape. In virtual reality the material and the actual are completely done away with and replaced with the immaterial and the imagined. Escaping the physical body and living in the virtually resurrected fleshless body is an attractive characteristic of the virtual world, but it is only attractive in the sense that it appeals to man’s desire to be like God and not giving proper glory to God.[viii]

Another issue that must be considered when evaluating the morality of interactive virtual worlds from a Christian perspective is the idea of gender. Players in these online communities can choose whichever gender they desire, and in some worlds can choose to be gender neutral or even of another species. On the original MUD, Habitat, there were four male users to every one woman, but the gender ration of online personalities was only three male users to every one female.[ix] Clearly, gender crossing is a common feature of these online communities. The Bible tells us that God made humans male and female; it is not something one can choose.[x] However, some virtual reality players claim that by playing several characters of different personalities and genders, they can feel out who they are themselves.[xi]

This is further complicated when considering that an online community member is not merely choosing whether or not to choose their real-life gender in virtual reality, they are interacting with individuals online that may or may not be of the gender that they present themselves to be. Having romantic relationships between avatars stirs the pot even further. These sexual encounters are not only sinful, they can be perverse as well. Though some argue that one’s avatar is distinct from the individual which controls it,[xii] that individual still considers that avatar to be them in this online world. The user is vicariously doing the activities that his avatar is exhibiting.

Being able to choose one’s own identity online is usually seen as a positive. David Berger thinks that the fact that one can easily “become” somebody on the Internet should serve as a warning.[xiii] Those that are interacting with one another know nothing truly about the person behind the other’s avatar and may spend considerable time with someone that they would not in real life, for better or for worse. In virtual communities, participants can be truly blind to individual differences and cannot be guided by their real-life prejudices. Every interaction is taking place from behind “masks.”[xiv]

This makes it possible for a child or teenager to have close, though virtual, interactions with a pedophile, or a woman becoming virtually involved with a convicted rapist. This new type of community is believed to provide “the answer to the theorist’s search for a less exclusionary or repressive experience of community.”[xv] It is unlikely, however, that someone who has felt rejected by real life society for whatever reason will now feel good about being included in the community since it would be obvious the difference rests in the disguise of the characteristic prejudiced against rather than the welcoming of it.

It is this ambiguity of true identity online that makes real community unlikely and at best forced and superficial. Most users, however, do view the online virtual community as a true community, even if it is different than face-to-face interactions.[xvi] Through the virtual world, one user can impact another, therefore community is felt. Howard Rheingold believes that this is a true community because like others it “is also a collection of people who adhere to a certain (loose) social contract and who share certain (eclectic) interests.”[xvii] There is believed to be some benefit from connecting with strangers online who share your passions and ideas rather than hopelessly trying to connect with those around you with whom you cannot relate as well.[xviii]

However, the ability to choose to exit at anytime with no consequence and the possibility of presenting oneself as someone entirely different than one’s real life persona makes whatever connection made tentative and fragile. Not knowing the individual behind the avatar severely limits the possibility for any true heart-to-heart connection. By allowing members of the online community to enter and exit at will, the so-called community “erodes trust, and renders impossible the collective building of a shared history and a shared set of ideals” that are necessary in a true community.[xix]

———————————————————————————————-

[i] Cooper, “Plenitude,” 100.

[ii] Kugel, “House.”

[iii] Terry J. Wright, “Confusing the Issue” Theology 104, no. 820 (2001), 261.

[iv] Graham Ward, Cities of God (New York: Routledge, 2000), 250.

[v] Rubina Ramji, “Building Community Word by Word: Religion in the Virtual World,” in God in the Details: American Religion in Popular Culture, ed. Erick Michael Mazur and Kate McCarthy (New York: Routledge, 2001), 267.

[vi] Barry E. Bryant, “Trinity, Technology and the Meaning of Personhood,” Memphis Theological Seminary Journal 38 (2002), 13.

[vii] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 341-344.

[viii] Ward, Cities, 251.

[ix] Turkle, Life, 212.

[x] Genesis 1:27.

[xi] Turkle, Life, 185.

[xii] Kugel, “House.”

[xiii] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 342.

[xiv] Howard Rheingold, “Virtual Communities,” in The Community of the Future, ed. Frances Hesselbein, et al (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998), 117-120.

[xv] Michelle Willson, “Community in the Abstract: a Political and Ethical Dilemma?” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 145.

[xvi] Ramji, “Community,” 278.

[xvii] Rheingold, “Communities,” 116-118.

[xviii] Berger, “Cybergnosticism,” 341.

[xix] Daniel M. Griswald, “Beyond the Hype: the Internet and the Church” Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2003): 9.

Today I’ll be starting a short series of posts on the ethics of interactive virtual worlds. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, google “Second Life,” which is the largest interactive virtual world right now. Or, you can just read my introduction below.

This is my paper that I wrote for my Christian ethics class this semester. I have only edited slightly to make it more readable on a blog. You’ll notice my writing is a lot more formal than in the blog world, so sorry about that.

The Morality of Interactive Virtual Worlds, Part 1

Today’s technological landscape is radically different than that of the beginning of the twenty-first century only seven years ago. The rapid pace of technological advance is unlikely to slow down in this era. Technological innovations have impacted every area of American society and often happen at a faster rate than those in the church can keep up with.

While most of these advances can be seen as great benefits to entertainment and the ease of daily life, none should be fully embraced without considering the consequences. One type of popular technology that has had a growing impact on the American public is the usage of virtual worlds to connect with one another online in a format entirely unfamiliar to anyone prior to the computer age.

Any Christian should consider the moral implications of virtual worlds prior to logging on to such an online community. Such Biblical principles such as the nature of God and man, appropriate gender roles, fleeing temptation, participating in community with other believers, and being a steward of one’s time apply to the morality of the use of interactive virtual worlds.

Today’s generation often views technology simply as tools to live by, necessary to maintain a lifestyle that is in keeping with those around them. Many desire the latest piece of technology simply because it is new or because they believe that it will make life easier or more enjoyable. The use of technology is just one reflection of how the new is desired simply because of its newness, and the old is rejected as out of date and thus irrelevant.[i]

It is important to remember that different types of technology are not of equal value. Technology is not a tool that can be used for good or bad,[ii] sometimes its immoral purpose is so wrapped up in it that it cannot be used in appropriate ways. However, current society views all technology as progress, which is identified as inherently good.[iii] Just because technology could be bad and can be used for evil purposes does not mean that we should reject it wholesale. Each individual kind of technological use should be examined on its own merits. Here I will examine interactive virtual worlds and the morality of participating in one.

Virtual reality games are “computer-generated systems which use cyberspace to simulate various aspects of interactive space.”[iv] The users of virtual worlds participate by using an avatar, a representation of themselves or the character they are playing in the online community. Virtual reality is said to especially draw on the postmodern ideas such as “the desire for mastery through which the subject is the absolute point of reference for, and creator of, its own experiences,” which allows for the expression of the person’s fears.[v] Interactive virtual worlds allow users to become a part of an entirely new community made up of idealistic representations of people from all over the world.

Virtual worlds are not entirely new to the twenty-first century. Early interactive communities were known as Multi-User Dungeons or MUDs, named after the popular role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons.[vi] In 1986 Lucasfilm and Quantum Computer Services created Habitat, a large “electronic communal space” at the time entirely unheard of, having 20,000 users at its heyday.[vii] This was a system that used primitive graphics and computer connections to allow users to interact with one another with their chosen avatars.

Even in this early virtual world, natural laws such as hunger, death, and disease were being overcome virtually allowing for supposed “ideal” conditions. Even with these threats relieved, Habitat suffered from crime such as stolen virtual items, virtual rape, and even virtual murder. The prevalence of these crimes and the refusal of the programmers to intervene and to prevent the possibility of crime lead to a grassroots movement to have sheriffs that enforced new rules.[viii] As technology continued to evolve, Habitat worked itself into obsoleteness, but was followed by several more generations of virtual worlds.

Today’s virtual worlds are far more sophisticated than the early MUDs, using 3-D graphics and real voice transmission in many cases. Virtual land can be bought and built to suit any purpose and users’ virtual likeness, their avatar, can be created and dressed as the user sees fit, regardless of who they are in real life. Virtual worlds today are also more accessible and attractive to the general population because they do not require computer programming skills, fast access to the Internet is more available, and the new interfaces are visually pleasing. According to Sherry Turkle, in this day “it is easier for people without technical expertise to blend their real and virtual lives.”[ix]

The most popular online virtual community today is Second Life, which records 8.6 million accounts have been made as of August 2007 with 1.6 million of them being active in the two months prior. The number of actual users is unknown because an individual can have more than one account, but Second Life also reports that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 users online at any given time.[x] Users of Second Life and other online virtual worlds can do anything they can do in real life: work, marry, make friends, and have sexual encounters as well as things they cannot do in reality such as fly, teleport, and create or recreate their own physical appearance instantaneously.

Tomorrow I will start to talk about the issues that should be considered when determining whether or not virtual worlds are moral or not.
——————————————————————————————–
[i] Lenore Yarger, “A Choosing People: Reclaiming Control over the Technologies in Our Lives,” The Other Side 33, no. 3 (1997): 23.

[ii] Bernard T. Adeney, “The Dark Side of Technology,” Transformation 11, no. 2 (1994): 21.

[iii] David O. Berger, “Cybergnosticism: Or, Who Needs a Body Anyway?” Concordia Journal 25 (1999): 344.

[iv] Cathryn Vasseleu, “Virtual Bodies/Virtual Worlds,” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 46.

[v] Simon Cooper, “Plenitude and Alienation: the Subject of Virtual Reality,” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 93.

[vi] Sherry Turkle, Life on Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (New York: Simon and Schuster: 1995), 180.

[vii] Michael J. Ostwald, “Virtual Urban Futures,” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace, ed. David Holmes (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997), 138-141.

[viii] Ostwald, “Futures,” 138-141.

[ix] Sherry Turkle, “Can You Hear Me Now?” Forbes, May 7, 2007. Forbes Online, http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0507/176.html (accessed November 14, 2007).

[x] Seth Kugel, “A House That’s Just Unreal,” New York Times, August 9, 2007. New York Times Online, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/garden/09second.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (accessed November 14, 2007).