ABSTRACT
In Part 1, we presented a series of arguments supporting the conclusion that questions regarding the morality of acts with a purely virtual genesis (e.g. video game interactions) are the wrong sorts of questions to ask. In effect, when it comes to the virtual act itself, there is no moral issue to consider, no rightness or wrongness to debate. Klimmt et al. (2006, p. 313) appear to share this view:
Obviously, in violent video games no living creatures are harmed and no real objects are damaged. Dead bodies, blood, and injuries are nothing more than pixels. The non-reality status of video games can therefore be used to explain why moral concerns are not ‘necessary’, applicable, or rational in their context; there simply seems nothing to be ‘real’ in a game that moral concerns could arise from. Consequently, players are not required to cope with moral ruminations.
