Lessig, in his book Remix, contrasts two types of culture: read only and read and write. He points out the current situation in which young people are engaging in an illegal activity that they deem ethical, such as music downloading. He argues the idea of a war on piracy has calcified our position to go hard and go all the way. However, he believes the effort should be aimed at finding the right balance between protecting certain rights while allowing the development of culture through individuals that choose to take part in the writing (and rewriting) of culture. Lessig argues that as new generations construct their idea of culture, they are more open to the idea of texts that are not fully and permanently controlled by their creators.

I think the whole picture of this book is based on what we call Confucian ethics as it highlights the relationships in society above the individual. Well, I would even say not so much above as determining. There is no individual without relationships. There is no ethics if it is not exemplified through actions within a social context.

When it comes to creation and culture, a Confucian approach would value the sharing on insight and shared knowledge above whatever wealth or fame a person may receive from hoarding the rights over their text (be it a song, a book, a program, etc). Many people find this to be a clearer picture of the digital reality we live in. Ess mentions FLOSS (free/libre/open source software) as evidence that many people, particularly younger generations, ascribe to this type of thinking by believing that it is much more enriching to the whole of society to release one’s rights over a certain element than it is to cling to one’s capacity to scream “MINE!” like an out of control toddler.

I do see value in his argument, but I have my doubts about how this would work as a general rule (and not like an exception) in our present society were ownership is so closely tied to the capacity of a person to achieve happiness (thanks Locke).

Utilitarian and deontological approaches seem to be rather rational. Under deontological views, actions are determined by universal laws, and once these are determined, it is somewhat simple to find if a specific action is ethical in reference to those principles.

Under utilitarian views, a person will make an analysis that determines if an action is ethical based on the benefits and costs associated with it. Enter the feminists. They bring up an element that definitely existed, but had not been added in the descriptions offered by the other theories: emotions. Feminists defend that caring for oneself and for others is crucial in forming ethical persons that consider their responsibilities in relationships.

The more I read about ethical frameworks, the more complicated it is to draw lines between them. In fact, I have the tendency to want to say: they are all saying the same, just in different words. Utilitarian considers costs and benefits, deontological maintains that actions should reflect static principles, virtues argue that we are forming who we are as a person with every action and therefore our actions should point to a complete and happy (eudaimonia) person, feminist ethics focuses on the positive role of feelings, particularly caring for others and for oneself.  However, from my Christian perspective I see all of these at play.

Image source: http://tinyurl.com/9zkw2s8

This is what drives my ethics: “Love the Lord your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). In openly declared Biblical rules, like “do not steal” (Exodus 20:15), there is a basic deontological ethics at work. God said it, therefore it must (or must not) be done. Yet, the same action is defendable from the biblical perspective of Matthew 7:12: “do to others what you would have them do to you”. This is a somewhat Kantian deontology. Furthermore, as the bible requires to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good”, it does not specifically call for a cost-benefit analysis, but in my experience I have found myself applying biblical principles to analyze the expected outcomes of two possible courses of action to determine which one is the right decision. Virtue ethics are also reflected in biblical principles as Paul says, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things… practice these things” (Phillipians 4: 8-9). He is calling each person to dwell and meditate on good things, to make them a continuous practice. All of these lead to Christlikeness, which is the ultimate virtue, a reflection of the perfect character of God (Ephesians 4:13). Finally, going back to the verse I first used, the driving force in my Christian ethical perspective is one that is based on love, and what is love, if not real care for another person. In this case, the person is first God, then my neighbor. Feminist ethics emphasizes caring and feelings as part of a well-rounded ethical framework.

I would be interested in knowing if other people whose ethics are not related to Christianism find the same interconnection, or even any interconnection, between these approaches to ethics.

Think about this unusual video game premise: You are an al-Qaeda member and your goal is to hijack an airplane and fly it into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Your reaction in one word? Maybe shocked, disgusted, appalled? Don’t worry, that video game doesn’t exist (yet).

However, I am trying to make a comparison with a game that is currently available online called Super Columbine Massacre RPG. In this game, the player is one of the shooters in the Columbine massacre. You can listen to the creator of the game talk about his motivation here.

Beyond the purpose of the creator, we have to ask if it is ethical to create and play such a game. I will try to answer these questions departing from the Aristotelian perspective, in which actions taken not only affect others but, most importantly, shape who we are as humans. In other words, what we do builds or tears up the virtues we need to be a fulfilled and complete (good) person. So, what virtue is a person reinforcing when s/he plays a game like SCMRPG?

First, I have to say, that to assume that such a video game will be the kick start of a bad virtue would be naïve. If someone is willing to engage in role playing a murderer who is going on a killing spree in a high school, then there are already some questionable characteristics in his person. The video game would be, then, feeding such a vice. So, what is that bad part of his/her character? Primarily, it would be violence towards innocent people. Supporting the idea that whatever level of disturbance gives leeway to shoot at another person is simply wrong. Allowing oneself to entertain such thoughts, even if in a make believe world, perpetuates feelings. I can’t help but link this Aristotelian idea to a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more a person plays such a role and increases the level of comfort with such ideas, the more corrupt his/her view of such action would become.

Building on that, it is easy to conclude that dedicating the time necessary to design the game, would lead to further nurturing the quality of comfort with irrational violence. However, that is not what the designer said. He argues, the more he got into creating the game, the more he realized that type of violence would not be “the right way to go”.

Many Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games include forums where players can chat among themselves. Any relatively open forum where users can remain anonymous naturally allows people to show a less acceptable side of themselves. It is then that comments are plagued with cyber bullying, trolling, flaming, and other indecent exchanges. In an effort to limit that type of content, companies that run such sites have considered the possibility of making it obligatory to use real names while using the site.

Image source: http://tinyurl.com/6mxmad7

There is certainly a viable ethical defense for the company’s action. It is virtually impossible and definitely not profitable to have enough moderators to supervise each of the posted messages quickly enough. The company has a certain responsibility to maintain an acceptable level of respect among users. This is particularly true because they are the ones that have the most power in the setting of the forums they run. They hold enough information to make commenters known, and hopefully reduce the ailments of open forums. All of these reasons are valid and lead to the conclusion that it is justifiable for the company to obligate user to post their real names.

Their arguments seem to come from a rather rational deontological perspective where they simply cannot allow someone to hide behind a screen name as they are blatantly insulting another person. Such companies feel a duty that they must fulfill as a protector of respect.However, they are failing to consider the benefits and costs (a utilitarian approach) for all involved. As they recognize in their forums, there are many people that participate in the forums with decorum even if the name under which they post is simply a screen name. These people (as well as those who choose to bully and offend others) would have their name not only linked to their messages and characters but in fact to MMORPGs. There are many people that wish to keep private the fact that they play because of the stigma associated with such games. Furthermore, as another commenter explains, other users would have the ability to search for private information on them by having access to their real name. Finally, and probably the most common case, people would be judged and possibly mistreated by other posters because of their gender or ethnicity if their names made it apparent.