This paper expands Rami Ali’s dissolution of the gamer’s dilemma (Ethics Inf Technol 17:267–274, 2015). Morgan Luck’s gamer’s dilemma (Ethics Inf Technol 11(1):31–36, 2009) rests on our having diverging intuition when considering virtual murder and virtual child molestation in video games. Virtual murder is seemingly permissible, when virtual child molestation is not and there is no obvious morally relevant difference between the two. Ali argues that virtual murder and virtual child molestation are equally permissible/impermissible when considered under different modes of engagement. To this end, Ali distinguishes between story-telling gameplay and simulation games, discussing both in depth. I build on the dissolution by looking into competitive gameplay in order to consider what the morally relevant difference between virtual murder and virtual child molestation might be when competing in a video game. I argue that when competitors consent to participate in a competition, the rules of the competition supersede everyday moral intuitions. As such, virtual competitions ought to represent such consent from virtual characters. Virtual children cannot be represented as giving consent to be molested because (1) children cannot be represented as giving sexual consent, and (2) consent to be possibly molested cannot be given. This creates a morally relevant difference between murder and molestation. By fully addressing competitive gameplay, I answer Luck’s worry that Ali’s dissolution is incomplete (Ethics Inf Technol 20:157–162, 2018).

中文翻译：

---

虚拟比赛和玩家的困境

本文扩展了拉米·阿里（Rami Ali）解散玩家的困境的方法（Ethics Inf Technol 17：267–274，2015）。Morgan Luck玩家的困境（Ethics Inf Technol 11（1）：31–36，2009）基于我们在考虑电子游戏中的虚拟谋杀和虚拟儿童骚扰时的直觉。在不允许假冒儿童并且两者之间在道德上没有明显的区别时，虚拟谋杀似乎是允许的。阿里认为，在不同参与方式下考虑，虚拟谋杀和and亵儿童同样是允许/不允许的。为此，Ali区分了讲故事的游戏玩法和模拟游戏，并进行了深入讨论。我通过研究竞争性游戏玩法来研究解散，以考虑在视频游戏中竞争时虚拟谋杀和virtual亵儿童行为在道德上的区别。我认为，当竞争对手同意参加比赛时，比赛规则将取代日常的道德直觉。因此，虚拟比赛应代表虚拟角色的同意。不能将虚拟儿童表示为同意mole亵，因为（1）无法将儿童表示为给予性同意，并且（2）无法表示可能被mole亵。这在谋杀和mole亵行为之间产生了道德上相关的区别。通过充分解决竞争性游戏玩法，我回答了勒克（Luck）担心阿里解散不完全的问题（Ethics Inf Technol 20：157–162，2018）。