Jonathan Milgrim

In online multiplayer games, players sometimes engage in “griefing”—deliberately harassing others without advancing any in-game objective. This paper argues that such virtual malice is morally wrong. Through philosophical analysis and empirical research, I argue that griefing causes real psychological distress for players, bridging the gap between virtual actions and real-world harm. A well-known World of Warcraft case—the “Serenity Now” funeral raid—illustrates the practice of griefing and its emotional impact on a gaming community. Applying multiple ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and social contract theory) confirms that griefing is ethically indefensible under each. This convergence underscores that even in games, deliberately harming others for its own sake violates basic moral standards.

This second edition of _Professions in Ethical Focus_ comprises over seventy-five readings complemented by twenty case studies with corresponding discussion questions. These resources are organized into several thematic units, including “conflicts of interest,” “honesty, deception, and trust,” “privacy and confidentiality,” and “professionalism, diversity, and pluralism.” An alternative table of contents is also provided, identifying readings that bear on particular professions such as engineering, journalism, medicine, law, and policing. The book’s introductory unit offers short selections from classic and contemporary ethical theory, including non-Western traditions. All of the readings have been introduced by the editors and carefully excerpted for relevance, always with the needs of student readers in mind.

The past presidential election reinvigorated interest in the applicability of conflict of interest legislation to the executive branch. In § 2, we survey various approaches to conflicts of interest, paying particular attention to 18 U.S.C. § 208. Under 18 U.S.C. § 202, this conflict of interest statute is straightforwardly inapplicable to the President. We then explore the normative foundations of such an exemption in § 3. While these sections are ultimately lenient, we go on to consider the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution in § 4. In §§ 5–6, we apply the Emoluments Clause to the presidency, arguing that it complements conflict-of-interest regimes with regards to foreign affairs, but with more substantial restrictions.