% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Heinrichs:888822,
      author       = {Heinrichs, Jan-Hendrik},
      title        = {{V}irtual action},
      journal      = {Ethics and information technology},
      volume       = {23},
      issn         = {1388-1957},
      address      = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-05236},
      pages        = {317-330},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {In the debate about actions in virtual environments two
                      interdependent types of question have been pondered: What is
                      a person doing who acts in a virtual environment? Second,
                      can virtual actions be evaluated morally? These questions
                      have been discussed using examples from morally dubious
                      computer games, which seem to revel in atrocities. The
                      examples were introduced using the terminology of “virtual
                      murder” “virtual rape” and “virtual pedophilia”.
                      The terminological choice had a lasting impact on the
                      debate, on the way action types are assigned and on how
                      moral evaluation is supposed to be conducted. However, this
                      terminology and its theoretical consequences, while
                      sometimes resulting in correct results, lead to absurd
                      results when applied across the board. It will be suggested
                      that these absurd consequences can be avoided by a different
                      answer to the question what people in virtual worlds are
                      doing. Alleged virtual actions are first and foremost the
                      creation and modification of data-structures and the
                      resulting output in computer hardware. Such modifications of
                      data structure and imagery can be performed with different
                      intentions, purposes and styles, which will influence the
                      type and moral evaluation of a user’s actions. This
                      reinterpretation allows for a more complex analysis of the
                      moral reasons for praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of
                      actions in virtual environments. This analysis takes not
                      just harm and effects on character into account but the
                      peculiar ways in which speech acts can be morally wrong:
                      e.g. agitatory, deceptive, bullshitting.},
      cin          = {INM-8},
      ddc          = {100},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-8-20090406},
      pnm          = {5255 - Neuroethics and Ethics of Information (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000598107000001},
      doi          = {10.1007/s10676-020-09574-8},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/888822},
}