1. “Virtually teaching” ethics
Considering the use of fully immersive, 3D virtu
environments in the teaching of ethics to future
professionals

2. What “the cave” looks like
from inside:

3. CAVE is a surround screen and sound system that creates the
sensation of immersion through the projection of 3D computer
graphics into a 10’x10’x10’ cube composed of display screens
that surround the viewer. Through head and hand tracking
systems, the correct stereo perspective is produced.

4. Sandin described the environment as a:
'multi-person, room-sized, high-resolution, 3D
video and audio environment. Graphics are rear
projected in stereo onto three walls and the floor,
and viewed with stereo glasses. As a viewer
wearing a location sensor moves within its display
boundaries, the correct perspective and stereo
projections of the environment are updated, and
the image moves with and surrounds the viewer.'
(in Janko, Leopoldseder, Stocker, 1996: 84)

5. The bullying scenario

6. The use of immersive VR for the
study of moral judgments is
often seen as an answer to two
well-known challenges:
1. The disjunction between abstract moral
judgments and actual behaviour
2. “The trolley problem”

7. What makes it okay to sacrifice
one person to save five others
in the switch case but not in the
footbridge case?

8. A modified version of the
trolley scenario (switch
case)
“we used only abstract human representations, in order to rule out the possibility of people‟s responses
being influenced by the appearances of the avatars – e.g., representing gender, types of people, and so
on. In spite of this, the participants did report feelings of stress” (Xueni Pan and Mel Slater, “Moral

9. The “after effects”
Having experienced the modified version of the
trolley scenario (switch case) in the CAVE,
participants were asked whether they would push
a fat man with a heavy backpack off a bridge in
order to stop a train hurtling towards another 5
people.
“participants who experienced CAVE were
significantly more likely to give a utilitarian
answer („yes‟: 33%) than those using the
Desktop display (0%, test of proportions p<0.01).
This is also counter to results from our
questionnaire survey (13%).” in virtual reality: a pilot study”, p. 50
Pan and Slater, “Moral dilemma

10. The limits of VR…
“we do not claim that the actions conducted
within VR are identical to those committed in the
grounded world outside of the research lab,
given that actions in the latter clearly have
greater legal, reputational, physical, and long-
term emotional consequences for the actors.
However, we posit that this is an important
feature of the method, and not a liability […] Our
goal, therefore, is to use VR as a small step in
forging a link between moral judgment and
moral behavior involving otherwise intractable
Navarette et al. (2011)
behavioral content”

11. Group of questions I
Can a law school aim at training students to
actually behave (rather than think) ethically
without slipping into some kind of “mind
formatting” enterprise?
Are there ways of using this immersive VR tool
that are more (or less) likely to avoid such a
charge?
How would you design the “post VR”, debriefing
sessions?

12. Group of questions II
What kind of virtual scenarios would be most
conducive to raising ethical awareness and / or
courage?
How would these differ from one kind of participant to
another (undergrads v. graduates or existing
lawyers)?
How would one design virtual scenarios that enable
its “subjects” to better understand the cultural
differences that affect the understanding and
perception of ethical problems (see for instance
corruption scenarios)?