You cannot steal virtual goods, and it is not morally wrong to do so.

Hello this will be my second debate. The grounds for this debate will be over my said topic. Now all of my information will be from the video game World of Warcraft. There is a large industry that takes and sells virtual items in this game so that is what I am basing this off of. And with that let us start. Although many dangerous creatures inhabit the lands of Azeroth none are more reviled than ninjas (Who are people who steal items from others in game). For all the trouble they cause, it's very difficult to say exactly what it is that ninjas are doing morally wrong. It may look like ninjas are no different than real-world thieves. And since stealing in the real-world is wrong then they are wrong. How can anyone steal a virtual good when said good DOES NOT EVEN EXIST? Clearly you cannot steal something without taking it, and we can no more take said good than we can clone virtual people or shake hands with a virtual person. So how can a ninja steal an item that is non-existent? It's reasonable to assume that thieves are real people who take real items that belong to other real people, and ninjas are virtual characters who virtually steal from other characters. Is this analogous in a morally relevant way? I will now define where some of my evidence comes from: I will be using Utilitarianism and De ontology. We will be using the Act Utilitarian. Here is how they work. The Act does not care if the ninja wanted the item for money or otherwise. He only cares if it maximises happiness. It is a matter of Happiness vs unhappiness. I will give more after I hit Deontology. They believe that actions are good or bad regardless of consequences. All that matters is the underlying goodwill. 1. Only act in such a way that it is logically possible for universal laws to be formed from our acts. 2. never use a moral agent merely to achieve a goal. So they believe that stealing is wrong. A moral law licensing theft cannot be universalized. Now a Act utilitarian can say that ninjaing is unfortunate because it causes pain. The small pleasure generated by the ninja is easily outweighed by the very real pain and frustration real people feel when they are ninjaed from. However there is no moral agent in this instance. As such they cannot say anything. The deontologist faces the same problem. Ninjaing if real would violate both things said earlier. It's not universalizable because no one would want to play if people could ninja. The ninja if he was a moral agent would be using the other person merely as a means to collect an item: this would wrong them by denying their moral autonomy. But, there is no moral agent. And if we cannot find a moral agent then neither theory will be able to treat ninjaing as immoral because there is no entity to hold morally liable. Ninjaing will be as morally benign as a natural disaster. As such there is nobody to hold morally liable for ninjaing. Therefore ninjaing cannot be wrong because there is no moral agent to hold morally accountable. If my opponent wishes me to state why there is no moral agent I will. I hope for a good debate on this topic and am waiting for someone to pick up as my opponent.