Sophia Maltese

Prof. Gygli

COMM130

April 25, 2019

Virtual Reality: The Experience Machine of the Elite

By nature, philosophy is convoluted. In discussing the moral implications of any subject,

or, in the case of this paper, virtual reality, people will have varying belief systems that

contextualize controversial issues. It is for this very reason that the widespread implementation

of virtual reality would be a detriment to society. There is no consensus. We do not yet

understand what is objective good and whatImagine living in a world that is not really a world,

going to a school that is not really a school, or touching people that are not really people. The

complete removal from the physical world is a considerable possibility in virtual reality, and

some do not take issue with this fact. Virtual reality cannot become more powerful and

immersive than it already is because morality is not consistent globally. If given the opportunity

organizations, governments, or even individuals would yield the power of virtual reality as a

weapon. By existing, virtual reality asks to be misused. The public cannot be trusted with a tool

that allows the creation of reality. This is reason enough to hinder the pursuance of totally

immersive virtual reality. However, the mistrust of the public does not make virtual reality

inherently wrong, nor does its existence. What makes virtual reality inherently wrong is both its

capabilities and the fabric of its being—namely that it creates a test lab for criminal behavior,

can be used for torture, further separates the rich from the poor in that only some would have

access to virtual reality gear, and creates an Experience Machine, leading users to the idea that
life can be manufactured rather than lived. Virtual reality as the Experience Machine undercuts

the meaning and purpose so many individuals crave and require in order to survive.

First, it must be addressed that virtual reality is not yet advanced enough to incur the

detremints proposed in their full force. Thus, the argument that virtual reality is an overall

negative advancement will be asserted based on its foreseeable path. Though virtual reality is not

fully developed, researchers are working fervently and creating completely immersive

technology that crafts a world indistinguishable from reality. As Robert Scoble, author and

respected blogger in the communication field states, “VR is at its beginning in 2016. We are just

getting our first headsets. Watching our first movies. Trying out our first video games. It is an

exciting time of discovery.” Additionally, Jesse Jourdy, Chief Executive Officer for a media

company called VRChat, says, “In 2016 VR has barely begun to affect the world. It’s like the

first iPhone. There are a small number of people that are extremely excited about it, but it’s true

power (for the iPhone it was the app store) still hasn’t been created.”

Its true power still hasn’t been created. What does the true power of virtual reality look

like? Is it psychological torture? The widespread destruction of culture? Just what is this “true

power” and how is anyone capable enough to handle it?

On the Virtual Reality Society website, an obviously biased source, two concerns are

raised regarding the widespread use of virtual reality. These concerns are desensitization and

virtual criminality. The website then boldly states that, “What may be argued is whether a virtual

reality participant can experience pain, distress or other emotions associated with a criminal act.”

Not only is this quote completely ignorant and lacking in all understanding reading how

individuals internalize and experience information, but it is simple wrong. For example, say that

two users are fighting in a classic war game. They are both clad in steel armor, swords poised in
their hands, feet light and ready to move. Each player can see the wind ruffle the other’s cotton

shirt poking through the points in the armor. They can see each other’s eyelashes, smell the

spring wind in the air, and note the cumulus clouds stretching in all directions. Without warning,

the one avatar lunges for the other. The second avatar is forced to go on the defensive, using

every technique to protect their life. In this situation, when tension is incredibly high is there is

no time to think about anything other than protecting your life, virtual reality becomes real. The

internalization of action gives virtual reality life. As a consequence of the lack of separation

between virtual and real environments, the user felt a threat to their life. The user internalized the

attack, not the greater context of the simulation. This can have deep and lasting effects on the

mental well-being of any user, especially if they are young or mentally challenged (Bailenson,

2017).

The Virtual Reality Society then concludes their miniscule acknowledgement of the

dangers of virtual reality by claiming that, “The disadvantages of virtual reality described above

are minute in comparison to the wide benefits of virtual reality as a whole.” This statement is not

backed by any sourced information nor is it elaborated on. Though there are benefits to virtual

reality, including its viability as a research tool, as a way to educate and connect with the

impoverished, as a method of training soldiers, astronauts, special operatives, etc., and its

potential as a form of therapy for the mentally and physically scarred, these benefits pale in

comparison to the completely destructive and homogenizing force virtual reality will enact upon

the fragile ecosystem of the world.

Furthermore, the benefits of virtual reality are also contributors to one of its major

detriments. Virtual reality increases the technological divide between the rich and the poor

(Bailenson, 2016). Until the mass adoption of virtual reality into society, only the elite will have
access to virtual reality technology. As of April 2019, a quality virtual reality headset is being

sold for nearly $200. Though proponents of virtual reality flaunt its merit as a force for good and

social change, how will any change be enacted if the technology is maintained solely amongst

the elite? By controlling the access to virtual reality, the most convincing benefits of it are

undermined. Children in developing nations cannot use a virtual classroom if they are not

granted access to one. According to the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative of

2014, 1.6 billion people are living in poverty, the majority of those subsisting on less than $1.50

a day.

Virtual reality has the potential to be a source for good, however, this small percentage is

overtaken by the assumption that people will not use virtual reality to advance their own agendas

or commit criminal acts. While researchers may this it is noble, like Foo Conner, social media

influencer and CEO of Jekko, who says that “Virtual Reality in 2016 is the story of humanity

mastering our senses,” other researchers, like Twente University philosopher Philip Brey say that

virtual reality is too invasive, to creationary. It allows criminal behavior to be enacted and

accepted, blurring the line between moral behavior and immoral behavior in the minds of those

who use virtual reality (Brey, 1999).

Virtual reality creates a playground for criminal behavior, allowing users to perform the

motions of killing and see what it would look like to watch another human being die. As of now,

this simulation is not entirely realistic, but it is sure to become totally realistic in the near future

with the rapid progression of virtual reality (Bailenson, 2016). While the effects of violent video

games have long been debated, the power of the simulation changes the effects of the media.

Violent video games or movies may not create violent tendencies or aggression in audience
members, but enacting a killing just as one would in real-life creates an ethical gray zone that

most are not comfortable with.

People are not comfortable with extreme acts of violence in virtual reality because there

is no distinguishable difference between that and actual reality. The only separation between the

two is the small voice in the back of the user’s head that whispers the simulation is not real.

However, in playing tense and seemingly life-threatening situations, the user will not be focused

on how the game is just a game, they will be focused on killing their opponent, on seeing them

bleed. While it could be argued that virtual reality games do not need to construct realistic

deaths, this argument is unsubstantial. Without universal and heavy government regulation,

games will be released that feature realistic killing. Any citizen who knows how to code could

create the simulation.

Lastly, virtual reality gives life to a long discussed philosophical issue—the Experience

Machine. Detailed by Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974, the

Experience Machine is a hypothesized mechanism that grants its user the ability to select her

own experiences and then immerse herself entirely in them. The user can select the perfect life.

She can have kids, get married, attain her dream job, and reach every goal she had ever imagined

for herself all while floated in a tub of blue fluid while electrodes buzz at her temples.

The Experience Machine is nearly identical to virtual reality and raises the same

philosophical and moral dilemmas that virtual reality does. The difference with the Experience

Machine is that scholars had the opportunity to debate the question for nearly fifty years.

However, no one has reached a consensus on whether or not the Experience Machine is good or

bad. This is because the Experience Machine asks what the purpose of life is—a question that
has been asked for nearly the entirety of existence. Is the purpose of life pleasure, to feel good?

Or, is the purpose of life meaning, to create a substantial difference in the world around you?

Most would argue that the purpose of life is to find meaning in those around you and

through real life experiences. However, the question is what makes those experiences real. Why

is skydiving in a simulation any less real than skydiving from a physical airplane? This is a valid,

question, to which one could respond with why then is killing in a simulation any different than

killing someone in real life? If the experiences one obtains through virtual reality are to be

considered any different than those one obtains through living, they are not valid experiences. In

using virtual reality, the user must understand that the technology is just technology. It is not life;

it is not creation; it is a collection of convincing pixels. Therein the danger lies. How can a user

be convinced that their experience is not real when every instinct and processing function they

have is telling them otherwise?

Virtual reality has created moral dilemmas on multiple fronts. Though the correct use of

it can have positive effects such as providing impoverished children with education, these effects

are not the primary concern of the technology, leading it to stay trapped in the hands f the elite.

Furthermore, any positive effect virtual reality incurs is mitigated by the intense negative effects

it would have on users and society. Virtual reality allows users’ darkest fantasies to flourish. It

provides a safe space for indulgence where the immediate consequences are abysmal, but the

lasting consequences have the potential to be life-threatening. Lastly, virtual reality constructs a

meaningless escape in which people find themselves seeking pleasure above all else. The

material world is eliminated and the self-serving chasm of entertainment is opened wider and

darker than any purpose-driven person is prepared for.

Sources:

16 Experts Predict the Future of Virtual Reality. (2019, February 25). Retrieved from

https://arkenea.com/blog/virtual-reality-expert-roundup/

Bailenson, J. (2019). Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it

can do. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Brey, P. (1999). The ethics of representation and action in virtual reality. Ethics and Information

Technology, 1(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010069907461

Mann, J. (2017, May 09). How Duchamp's Urinal Changed Art Forever. Retrieved from

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-duchamps-urinal-changed-art-forever

Nozick, R. (2017). Anarchy, state and Utopia. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Virtual Reality and Ethical Issues. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-

reality/ethical-issues.html