May Kantians commit virtual killings that affect no other persons?

Are acts of violence performed in virtual environments ever morally wrong, even when no other persons are affected? While some such acts surely reflect deficient moral character, I focus on the moral rightness or wrongness of acts. Typically it's thought that, on Kant's moral theory, an act of virtual violence is morally wrong (i.e., violates the Categorical Imperative) only if the act mistreats another person. But I argue that, on Kant's moral theory, some acts of virtual violence can be morally wrong, even when no other persons or their avatars are affected. First, I explain why many have thought that, in general on Kant's moral theory, virtual acts affecting no other persons or their avatars can't violate the Categorical Imperative. For there are real world acts that clearly do, but it seems that when we consider the same sorts of acts done alone in a virtual environment, they don't violate the Categorical Imperative, because no others persons were involved. But then, how could any virtual acts like these, that affect no other persons or their avatars, violate the Categorical Imperative? I then argue that there indeed can be such cases of morally wrong virtual acts-some due to an actor's having erroneous beliefs about morally relevant facts, and others due not to error, but to the actor's intention leaving out morally relevant facts while immersed in a virtual environment. I conclude by considering some implications of my arguments for both our present technological context as well as the future.

Automated summary

The debate on whether acts of violence in virtual environments are morally wrong even when no other persons are affected is ongoing. Traditionally, it is believed that according to Kant's moral theory, virtual acts of violence are only morally wrong if they mistreat another person. However, some argue that certain acts of virtual violence can be morally wrong even if they do not impact anyone else.