Virtuality fallacy

Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects.

Version

v1 · 2026-09-28 · History

Domain-specific #

12809

Domain group

Professional & Organizational Practice

Origin domain

Ethics of Technology & AI Governance

Subdomain

Computer Ethics → Ethics of Technology & AI Governance

Core Idea

Virtuality fallacy is treated here as the recurring socialscienceshumanitiesarts identity summarized by this source-grounded definition: Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects. The virtuality fallacy, first identified in the context of ICT ethics by American ethicist James H. Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects.

Scope of Application

• Documented setting. This fallacy could be used by those who want to defend their own questionable behavior on the Internet by saying "This is not real and will not cause any harm to.

• Documented setting. The virtuality fallacy, first identified in the context of ICT ethics by American ethicist James H.

• Documented setting. Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects.

• Documented setting. Conclusion: X (or the effect of X) is not real.

• Documented setting. This fallacy could be used by those who want to defend their own questionable behavior on the Internet by saying "This is not real and will not cause any harm to.

Clarity

A clear use of Virtuality fallacy names the carrier, the operative relation, and the conditions under which the source treats the identity as present. The minimal definition is Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects.

Manages Complexity

Virtuality fallacy compresses multiple socialscienceshumanitiesarts details into a stable diagnostic relation. The source shows both the central mechanism—this fallacy could be used by those who want to defend their own questionable behavior on the Internet by saying "This is not real and will not cause any harm to other people.".—and the practical consequence—this fallacy could be used by those who want to defend their own questionable behavior.

Abstract Reasoning

1. Type the carrier. Identify the socialscienceshumanitiesarts entities to which the claim applies.
2. State the relation. Use the source-grounded identity: Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects.
3. Check operation and conditions. Moor in 2001, is a name given to the informal fallacy of asserting that things which exist in a virtual context are not real, or do not have real effects. 4.

Knowledge Transfer

Within the home domain. Knowledge about Virtuality fallacy transfers literally when a new case preserves the same carrier type, relation, and recognition test. This fallacy could be used by those who want to defend their own questionable behavior on the Internet by saying "This is not real and will not cause any harm to other people.". The virtuality fallacy, first identified in the context of ICT ethics by American ethicist James H. Beyond the home domain. No canonical parent is asserted for Virtuality fallacy.

Relationships to Other Abstractions

Current abstraction Virtuality fallacy Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

• Virtuality fallacy is a kind of Informal Fallacy Prime

  The virtuality fallacy is an informal fallacy denying the reality or effects of virtual entities solely because they are virtual.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

• Virtuality fallacy → Informal Fallacy

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space

Virtuality fallacy sits in a sparse region of the domain-specific corpus (74^th percentile for distinctiveness): few abstractions share its structure, so a faithful description tends to retrieve it precisely.

Family — Informal Fallacies of Perspective (6 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

• Table 2 fallacy — 0.84
• Virtuality (software design) — 0.84
• Exploratory thought — 0.83
• Frankfurt cases — 0.83
• Declarative knowledge — 0.83

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-08