Alex Fisher

It is controversial whether virtual reality should be considered fictional or real. Virtual fictionalists claim that objects and events within virtual reality are merely fictional: they are imagined and do not exist. Virtual realists argue that virtual objects and events really exist. This metaphysical debate might appear important for some of the practical questions that arise regarding how to morally evaluate and legally regulate virtual reality. For instance, one advantage claimed of virtual realism is that only by taking virtual objects and events to be real can we explain our strong emotional reactions to certain virtual actions, as well as their potential immorality. This paper argues that emotional reactions towards, and wrongs within, virtual reality are consistent with its being merely fictional. The emotional and ethical judgments we wish to make regarding virtual reality do not provide any grounds for preferring virtual realism.

Imaginatively adopted attitudes and ways of thinking sometimes persist, bleeding into day-to-day thoughts and interactions. Such imaginative contagion is often reported in the context of theatrical acting, and is also observed among videogame players and virtual reality users. A first question is how imaginative contagion occurs. This paper distinguishes immediate and delayed contagion, which differ in their temporal duration, and offers an explanation of each. Yet imaginative contagion also poses an ethical concern: troubling attitudes we imaginatively adopt might persist, damaging our moral character. This paper indicates how experiencing imaginative resistance, and our practicing techniques of active quarantine, can help to prevent our acquiring highly immoral attitudes, diminishing the concern about the corruptive influence of imaginative contagion.