Emerging Ethical Issues of Life in Virtual Worlds, edited by Charles Wankel and Shaun Malleck
Chapter 4 contains an essay by Andrew A. Adams on virtual sex with child avatars.
The issue discussed is interesting because it provides a concrete case of what I would call "victimless victimization".
The assumption is that the children abused are entirely virtual, that is, they are digital artifacts with no relation to any real individual, not even indirect (e.g. avatars based on photographs). The assumption is reasonable. Besides, it would be pointless to argue that the immorality of the the whole experience lies in the risk that real children might be involved. If they are, as victims, perpetrators or even mere viewers, then we are dealing with a different problem.
A consequentialist approach can hardly argue for the immorality of victimless victimization. Actually, it should probably be in favour, given the pleasures enjoyed by the adults involved. There is little difference between virtual pornography and virtual killing. As Adams rightly concludes: "From a utilitarian perspective, therefore, we must currently conclude that there is no significant normative basis on which to judge the practice of sexual ageplay to be unethical".
It is unclear what a deontological approach might suggest, since no humans are being used, either as ends of means.
A virtue-ethic line of reasoning seems more promissing: such practices tend to build the wrong sort of characters and definitely not the right sort of citizen or social beings. But then, it depends on whether the adults indulging in such behaviours are actually resisting much worse temptations. If indulging in virtual pedophilia is the best one can do, that's not great, but it's much better than the alternative and it might show the exercise of some moral restrain.
Personally, I would take a more environmental approach. Insofar as virtual child pornography and virtual pedophilia in general does not affect the environment negatively, it seems morally neutral. It might be revolting to most, but that is a matter of taste.
If no real child is abused, harmed or involved in any way,
if the adults are not affected (or even affected positively, to the extent that the practice might reduce the incidents of sexual violence and abuse in real life), and
if the fabric of human relations and society is left untouched (e.g. real pedophilia and child pornography is not made more acceptable, grooming is not made easier etc.),
then virtual child pornography is no different from other harmless sex fantasies in which adults may indulge in private.
The question is not whether the whole phenomenon should be condemned and made illegal. In a free society, people should be allowed to express their harmless inclinations, no matter how disturbing to other members, and virtual worlds are a great place where to allow the expression of our less acceptable desires.
The question is whether and how far the iffs listed above are satisfied and what reassurances we might have that they are. It is tis moral risk that might be under discussion, not the practice in itself. If the iffs are satisfied, and they are in full, then, legally and morally, let people do what they wish, there seems to be nothing intrinsically wrong with virtual pornography, whether it involves under age avatars or not.
Of course, one may rightly wonder whether those adults should be doing something else instead with their time and energy. This is a moral issue, but a different one.Would it be morally better if they could do something else? Something morally good, instead of something that is, at best, morally neutral? Probably. Unfortunately, this is a comparative question that friends of Lolitas will find almost impossible to entertain.
Comments
Post a Comment