Are Immoral Actions in Video Games Ethically Justifiable?

Morality is often described as subjective, shaped by culture, geography, and social norms rather than by any universal standard. What one society condemns as immoral may be widely accepted, or even celebrated, in another. History offers countless examples of practices once considered normal that are now viewed as unethical, and vice versa. This raises an uncomfortable but important question: if morality shifts so easily across time and place, can it ever be truly objective? In a hypothetical world where consequences did not exist, would our principles remain the same? If there were no punishments, no rewards, no lasting harm or benefit, would we still act according to the values we claim to hold today? Or do we follow our principles because we have learned what happens when we don’t?In such a world, who would you be as a person? Would your actions still align with your current moral beliefs, or would those beliefs dissolve once the fear of consequences disappears? Video games are your answer to this "hypothetical world."
This raises an unsettling question, when consequences are stripped away, what remains of morality? Do we act ethically because we genuinely believe in our principles, or because we are conditioned to avoid punishment and loss? And if morality collapses in a consequence-free environment, was it ever truly intrinsic to begin with?