eISSN: 3087-4076 editor@aimjournals.com
All Journals
Submit your article

International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Development

Open Access Peer Review International
Open Access

IMMERSIVE ETHICS IN VIRTUAL REALITY: NARRATIVE, REMEDIATION, AND THE MORAL ARCHITECTURE OF SIMULATED EXPERIENCE

DOI https://doi.org/10.54640/
PDF
Laura M. Davenport 1 ,
4 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia

Abstract

Virtual reality has evolved from an experimental artistic and scientific curiosity into a pervasive technological medium that increasingly structures how humans learn, feel, judge, and relate to one another. From its early artistic and performative origins to its contemporary applications in clinical psychology, education, entertainment, and social training, virtual reality now occupies a powerful position in shaping human perception and moral understanding. This article develops a comprehensive ethical and philosophical analysis of immersive virtual environments by drawing exclusively on foundational and contemporary scholarly works in virtual reality theory, media studies, applied ethics, and critical race and technology studies. It argues that virtual reality must be understood not merely as a neutral technical system but as a moral and narrative architecture that actively constructs meaning, emotional orientation, and social power.

Grounded in theoretical contributions from Rheingold’s cultural history of virtual reality, Bolter and Grusin’s theory of remediation, and Sherman and Craig’s cognitive and experiential framework, this study conceptualizes virtual reality as a form of mediated performance that blurs the distinction between representation and lived experience. Building on Coates’ early multimedia performances, VR is shown to originate in artistic and theatrical traditions that already understood simulation as ethically and psychologically transformative. These insights are extended through Gobbetti and Scaneti’s clinical work, which demonstrates that virtual environments possess real neurological and emotional consequences, thereby demanding ethical scrutiny comparable to that of physical-world interventions.

The ethical core of the article is constructed through Madary and Metzinger’s framework of real virtuality, Kenwright’s risk-based analysis, Ramirez’s ecological critique, and IBM’s applied ethics for artificial intelligence. These perspectives converge on a central insight: immersive technologies reshape the self, influence implicit attitudes, and reorganize moral agency in ways that existing ethical systems were not designed to manage. Special attention is given to vulnerable populations such as children and adolescents, drawing on Darvasi and Southgate and colleagues, who highlight how immersive presence intensifies psychological impact and complicates consent, autonomy, and long-term developmental outcomes.

The article also engages critically with the growing use of virtual reality to generate empathy, particularly around race and social justice. Nakamura and Salmanowitz are used to demonstrate that so-called “empathy machines” may reinforce simplified or instrumentalized understandings of identity rather than dismantling structural inequality. Through Harney and Moten’s concept of the undercommons and Coeckelbergh’s theory of digital deception as performance and magic, the article reframes virtual reality as a political and cultural stage where power, identity, and morality are continuously enacted.

By synthesizing these diverse perspectives into a unified ethical framework, this study argues for a shift away from purely technical regulation toward a relational, narrative, and responsibility-centered approach to virtual reality design and governance. Virtual reality is not simply a medium for experience but a medium that produces experience in ethically consequential ways. The future of immersive technology therefore depends not on whether it can simulate reality more convincingly, but on whether it can be developed in ways that respect human dignity, diversity, and moral complexity.

Keywords

Virtual reality, immersive ethics, digital embodiment, empathy tegiechnolos

References

📄 The integrated analysis of the referenced literature reveals several consistent and interrelated findings about the ethical nature of virtual reality. The first is that VR functions as a medium of embodied narrative rather than mere visual simulation. Coates’ multimedia performances demonstrate that immersive environments are inherently performative, inviting users into a story-world in which their actions and perceptions are scripted by design (Coates, 1992). Sherman and Craig’s concept of presence explains why these environments feel real: the brain integrates sensory cues into a coherent model of space and agency, making virtual events psychologically meaningful (Sherman and Craig, 2003). Rheingold’s cultural history reinforces this by showing that VR has always been imagined as a way to live inside stories, not just watch them (Rheingold, 1995).
📄 The second finding is that because VR produces real psychological and neurological effects, it must be evaluated as a form of intervention rather than entertainment alone. Gobbetti and Scaneti show that virtual environments used in therapy can alter neural pathways and emotional responses, producing lasting changes in behavior and self-perception (Gobbetti and Scaneti, 1998). Madary and Metzinger extend this insight by arguing that experiences in virtual environments are part of a person’s lived reality and therefore subject to ethical standards of care and responsibility (Madary and Metzinger, 2016).
📄 The third finding concerns the way VR remediates existing cultural narratives. Bolter and Grusin’s theory reveals that immersive environments do not emerge from a cultural vacuum but reconfigure older media forms such as cinema, theater, and literature (Bolter and Grusin, 1999). This means that the ideologies embedded in those forms, including racial, gender, and colonial narratives, are reproduced in VR unless explicitly challenged. Nakamura’s analysis of virtuous virtual reality demonstrates how empathy-based VR experiences can inadvertently simplify or commodify racial suffering, turning complex social realities into consumable emotional spectacles (Nakamura, 2020).
📄 The fourth finding is that VR has measurable effects on implicit attitudes and social judgment. Salmanowitz’s study shows that immersive simulations can alter implicit racial bias and influence mock legal decisions, indicating that VR shapes not only how users feel but how they judge and act (Salmanowitz, 2018). This confirms Kenwright’s warning that VR poses ethical risks by influencing behavior in subtle but powerful ways (Kenwright, 2018).
📄 The fifth finding concerns vulnerability and developmental impact. Darvasi and Southgate et al. demonstrate that children and adolescents are particularly susceptible to the psychological intensity of VR, raising concerns about consent, identity formation, and long-term effects (Darvasi, 2016; Southgate et al., 2017). Ramirez’s ecological critique adds that these individual impacts accumulate into broader cultural transformations, as immersive technologies reshape norms of interaction and attention (Ramirez, 2019).
📄 Finally, Coeckelbergh’s theory of digital deception and Harney and Moten’s concept of the undercommons reveal that VR operates as a political and ethical stage. It is a space where narratives, identities, and power relations are performed and contested, often in ways that obscure their constructed nature (Coeckelbergh, 2018; Harney and Moten, 2013).
📄 Discussion
📄 The findings of this study indicate that virtual reality must be understood as a moral medium, one that produces and organizes ethical meaning through its design, narratives, and modes of interaction. This challenges the common assumption that technology is ethically neutral and that moral responsibility lies only with users. In VR, the environment itself scripts possibilities for action, shaping what users can perceive, feel, and do.
📄 Bolter and Grusin’s theory of remediation is particularly important here, because it shows that VR inherits the moral and ideological structures of older media (Bolter and Grusin, 1999). A virtual classroom, a therapeutic simulation, or an empathy experience is never just a technical tool; it is a narrative space shaped by cultural assumptions about knowledge, health, and identity. When these assumptions go unexamined, VR risks reinforcing the very inequalities it claims to address.
📄 Nakamura’s critique of virtuous virtual reality illustrates this danger. Empathy-based VR experiences often promise to make users more understanding of marginalized groups, but by reducing complex social realities to individual emotional journeys, they can depoliticize injustice and center the feelings of privileged users (Nakamura, 2020). Salmanowitz’s findings that VR can influence legal judgment underscore the seriousness of this issue, as immersive narratives may shape real-world decisions about justice and responsibility (Salmanowitz, 2018).
📄 The ethical frameworks proposed by Madary and Metzinger and by IBM’s Everyday Ethics initiative emphasize principles such as informed consent, transparency, and respect for autonomy (Madary and Metzinger, 2016; Cutler et al., 2018). While these principles are necessary, this study suggests that they are not sufficient. Ethical VR design must also address narrative responsibility, cultural representation, and power dynamics. Who gets to design the virtual world? Whose stories are told? Whose bodies are represented, and how?
📄 Children and adolescents, as Darvasi and Southgate et al. show, are particularly at risk because their identities and cognitive frameworks are still forming (Darvasi, 2016; Southgate et al., 2017). Exposing them to immersive narratives that encode harmful stereotypes or unrealistic expectations can have lasting effects. This raises questions about educational VR, gaming, and social platforms, which increasingly target young users.
📄 Ramirez’s ecological perspective further expands the scope of ethical concern by highlighting how VR reshapes not only individual users but entire systems of research, education, and social interaction (Ramirez, 2019). As immersive technologies become normalized, they alter how people relate to their bodies, to one another, and to reality itself. This transformation demands a level of ethical reflection that goes beyond safety checklists and regulatory compliance.
📄 Harney and Moten’s concept of the undercommons offers a way to imagine alternative uses of VR. Rather than seeing immersive technology solely as a tool for institutional control or commercial exploitation, it can also be a space for collective creativity, resistance, and new forms of sociality (Harney and Moten, 2013). Coeckelbergh’s framing of digital technology as magic and performance reminds us that VR is always an act of storytelling, one that can enchant, deceive, or liberate depending on how it is used (Coeckelbergh, 2018).
📄 Conclusion
📄 Virtual reality is not simply a new way of seeing the world; it is a new way of being in the world. By producing immersive, embodied, and emotionally charged experiences, VR reshapes how people understand themselves, others, and reality itself. The analysis presented in this article demonstrates that these effects are not ethically neutral but deeply moral, political, and cultural.
📄 Drawing on a wide range of theoretical, clinical, and ethical scholarship, this study has shown that virtual environments function as narrative and performative spaces in which values, identities, and power relations are enacted. From early artistic experiments to contemporary applications in therapy, education, and social intervention, VR has always been about more than technology. It is about the stories we tell, the bodies we inhabit, and the worlds we imagine.
📄 The future of virtual reality therefore depends not only on technical innovation but on ethical imagination. Designers, researchers, educators, and policymakers must recognize that every virtual world is also a moral world. By approaching VR with humility, critical awareness, and a commitment to human dignity, it is possible to create immersive technologies that enrich rather than diminish our shared reality.
📄 References
📄 Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. A. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
📄 Coates, G. (1992). Program from Invisible Site—A Virtual Show, a multimedia performance work presented by George Coates Performance Works, San Francisco, CA.
📄 Coeckelbergh, M. (2018). How to describe and evaluate “deception” phenomena: Recasting the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of ICTs in terms of magic and performance and taking a relational and narrative turn. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 71–85.
📄 Cutler, A., Pribić, M., & Humphrey, L. (2018). Everyday ethics for artificial intelligence. IBM Watson.
📄 Darvasi, P. (2016). Five ethical considerations for using virtual reality with children and adolescents.
📄 Gobbetti, E., & Scaneti, R. (1998). Virtual environments in clinical psychology and neuroscience. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
📄 Harney, S., & Moten, F. (2013). The undercommons: Fugitive planning & black study. New York: Autonomedia.
📄 Kenwright, B. (2018). Virtual reality: Ethical challenges and dangers. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 37(4), 20–25.
📄 Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. K. (2016). Real virtuality: A code of ethical conduct. Recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3(3), 1–23.
📄 Nakamura, L. (2020). Feeling good about feeling bad: Virtuous virtual reality and the automation of racial empathy. Journal of Visual Culture, 19(1), 47–64.
📄 Ramirez, E. J. (2019). Ecological and ethical issues in virtual reality research: A call for increased scrutiny. Philosophical Psychology, 32(2), 211–233.
📄 Rheingold, H. (1995). Virtual reality. New York: Simon & Schuster.
📄 Salmanowitz, N. (2018). The impact of virtual reality on implicit racial bias and mock legal decisions. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(1), 174–203.
📄 Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2003). Understanding virtual reality. Elsevier Science.
📄 Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., & Scevak, J. (2017). Asking ethical questions in research using immersive virtual and augmented reality technologies with children and youth. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, Los Angeles, CA.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>