I think by this point of the course, it is more than established that virtual communities do form and count by classical terms as communities (Geimenshaft) I wonder, though, how through the ethos of these communities (which are invariably, recent) a rudimentary moral code could form. Is virtual morality an extension of real-world morality, or does it follow a different pattern in permissibility? I would think it important to consider the cross-cultural hybrid communities that form. Maybe the fact that actual (i use actual to mean real-world) societies' differ in their concepts of moral vs. conventional rules a renegotiation of what the filter is for morality is necessary.
Can virtual communities be, in a sense, liminal spaces for morality? Does a moral code necessarily arise from a community? Does the lack of physical presence limit the need for a moral code (limited ability to produce physical harm etc)
I just want to know what others think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, these are great questions and thoughts and I haven't had the time to really digest them yet, but I do have a couple of off-the-cuff "reactions"/responses.
(1) I think that it would be a mistake to assume that a moral code arises FROM a community, that to assume this occurs by inserting a false dichotomy between the individual and the community. From my perspective the individual is (to use Heidegger's odd phrase) "thrown" into the world - we are individuals only in relation to our communities and our ability to define the morality of our community is as much a result of our capacity to recognize our own (pre-existent) morality as our ability to develop our morality is a result of our community's (pre-existent) norms and morals. To put it like Plato did, society is the individual writ large. Hence, I believe that morality inherently exists within any community virtual or not. However, you hit the real issue with your last question --
(2) "Does the lack of physical presence limit the need for a moral code..." I have two thoughts about this -- First, I don't think that the lack of physical presence online implies a lack of ability to harm in the so-called "real" world. Quite the contrary - the possibilities for harm may in fact be greater because this is an environment with which we are much less familiar -- hence our abilities to assess risk are probably still quite rudimentary, making it potentially easier for the skilled traveller in virtual realms to wilfully harm someone else. Also, I think we need to distinguish between morality (which could be implicitly known without being consciously spelled out) and consciously enunciated moral codes. They are not necessarily the same thing.
I think that that a moral code does arise from community. Back to a discussion we had in class regarding citizen media sites and modeling, I think we referred to the case where someone posted pictures of a fire, and then others subsequently followed posting pictures when similar events occured. The first pictures in essence created a "model" for other posters to follow. I think this same type of phenomenon can extend to the idea of a moral code in which we could have a virtual community where the praise or reproach of immoral acts by community members dictates what is or is not acceptable in the community. I agree that morality inherently exists within any community, but I think the virtual community itself decides its own moral code based on modeling.
Post a Comment