Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Context: For context I'll start by saying this argument in my mind occurred as a result of playing and beating Undertale's neutral and good endings and wanting to play the bad ending but not morally feeling okay with playing it. I also heavily pissed off my father discussing this as he is a heavily reality-oriented mind, but in the process gained some valuable perspective from him as well on this.

Question: Is it okay to do something wrong if it's in a simulation?

Reasoning: Hypothetically if you had a simulation that mimicked reality perfectly, one would not be able to tell the difference. If this occurred, would that simulation still be a simulation, or would it be reality?

If all the things from reality were in the simulation including all the ways in which one can sense things like pain or complex thoughts and emotions like love, I would personally, be inclined to say that is indeed reality, or more specifically an alternate reality.

Now if it is possible for a simulation to be an alternate reality, then doing something wrong in that alternate reality would indeed be wrong. So we don't get hung up on 'what is wrong' I'll go with the obvious widespread fear, suffering, and death are wrong. Those things for this argument define what is wrong.

So how many features can you afford to take away from an alternate reality, before it is no longer reality and just a simulation such as a video game? If I simply made it so a color did not exist in an alternate reality, would that reality suddenly be a simulation? Presuming a minute adjustment like removing a single color does not make a reality any less real, that would not be the case.

Once it is established there is a grey are where you know there are features that can be removed from an alternate reality without making it any less real, the line between an alternate reality and a simulation becomes blurred and you're left with such ambiguity that even a video game can be considered an alternate reality.

This logic would make a video game a reality in itself, and thus make actions that cause fear, suffering, and death wrong.

Importance: I ask you users to please dismantle this logic so I can play the bad ending to Undertale. I went into Undertale hating Undertale for this specific reason above all others, because the game's character Flowey says it's wrong to take away the good ending the characters have received with the 'True Reset' option you're given upon beating the good ending. Otherwise, if Flowey is indeed right about it being wrong to take away a good ending for these characters since one could argue this video game is an alternate reality, it would indeed be wrong to play out the evil endings in all video games for pure enjoyment's sake.

How you feel about changing the pattern pixels on a screen being manipulated by electronic signals is entirely up to you. If you want get the bad ending, then just take a look at a processor or a CPU and realize that that is all you're really dealing with.

While nothing is completely Black and White in this world, a good rule of thumb is "Is someone being unjustly hurt by your actions?" Shooting someone in real life? Yes. Shooting someone in CS:GO? They are gonna get pissed, but that's the nature of the game.

Undertale put in the Genocide route specifically so that players can explore the consequences of their actions and actually have the feeling of choice. You are not being nice to these characters because the game is forcing you to be, you can slaughter them all if you so choose, so when you don't, it actually means something.

That's one of the main appeals of Video Games, and why stuff like GTA is popular. You can do stuff you morally can't do in real life without actually hurting someone to explore those actions and indulge impulses you normally can't. I could easily race my friend in real life down a busy road evading police for fun, but that would hurt both myself and others, and would make me feel horrible. GTA allows me to do that without the constraints of reality and morality holding me back because no one is getting hurt.

These characters don't actually exist, nor are they sentient in any degree, they are simply pixels on a screen moving based on an algorithm designed to fool you into thinking they are people in their own little world. You are not actually controlling people or their lives, you are controlling pixels, a story, a narrative that has a finite number of possible outcomes that you simply choose which one happens.

When it comes to a perfect simulation, it's not even known if such a thing is physically possible. Artificial sentience is another deal in of itself. To make a perfect simulation to the point sentient creatures exist, you need to know everything there is to know about the universe you are simulating and how sentience and consciousness actually works. Once you get to that point, the nature of your question may be completely different or completely irrelevant.

Tl:dr Video Game characters aren't real, they are just pixels responding to an algorithm, do what ever you want, and when it comes to a perfect simulation, we don't know enough about the nature of reality and consciousness to even pretend we can answer that question.

I honestly don't know, and would have to do my own research to come up a definitive stance. Is it possible that making a game so realistic that the sensory information coming in from simulating a murder would be indistinguishable from the sensory information from a real murder? I dunno.
Would that lead to people becoming any less inhibited in doing the deed for real or would knowing that what you experienced is just a simulation be enough to prevent any sort of "imprinting" of destructive habits, thoughts, or behaviors whatsoever? I dunno.
Are there a million different things I haven't even touched on that further complicate the issue? Probably.

Yes, I'm being wishy-washy, but I don't like jumping to conclusions, and this topic involves a lot of speculation on things that haven't really been developed or researched yet.

If: Area is a simulation.
Then: Do whatever you want.

If: Area is not a simulation.
Then: Don't do anything immoral (and unethical if it turns out that way).

If: You don't know, it looks pretty convincing.
Then: Gather information first, err on the side of good morality.

Unless you literally have no choice, it's fine. IMO.