Morality In The Gamer's Dilemma By Morgan Luck

Most people would agree that murder is wrong. Most people would also agree that pedophilia is wrong. When it comes to the case of virtual murder and virtual pedophilia, people’s opinions tend to change. The general consensus is that virtual murder is morally permissible, as no one is actually harmed. However, even though no children are actually harmed, people view virtual pedophilia as morally impermissible. In The Gamer’s Dilemma, author Morgan Luck argues that “Unless such players [video gamers] can identify a morally relevant distinction between virtual murder and virtual peophilia, they must either accept that committing virtual pedophilia is morally permissible, or that they themselves have often committed morally prohibited acts,” (pg 510). What Luck is suggesting is that there is no moral distinction between virtual murder and virtual pedophilia, and that people must choose to acknowledge both as either morally permissible or as morally prohibited. …show more content…
In order to prove his argument that there is no moral distinction between virtual murder and virtual pedophilia, Luck considers, and ultimately dispels, five arguments against his own. The first argument, Social Acceptability, explains that for the most part, virtual murder is socially acceptable, while virtual pedophilia is not. This argument explains that people are more comfortable with virtual murder than with virtual pedophilia, but it does not give a moral justification for this outlook. Because of this, Luck argues that “morality is not relevant in this sense,” (pg