Morality of an action depends on affecting another conscious entity

The power of brain machine interfaces to free the mind or enslave it will open sometime this century.

Some estimates posit it early in the century, though I personally disagree on such optimism barring seminal discoveries in the field of research regards the nature of the mind, of intelligence.  As it is intelligence, the rate of thought and its complexity that limits the rate of progress.

Just as people today beam their images from little web cams out onto the Internet for others to share, many people in 2029 will beam the full stream of signals coming directly from their senses onto the web. We will then be able to experience what other people are experiencing, a la John Malkovich. Of course, the everyday lives of many such experience beamers may not be all that compelling, so there will be plenty of prerecorded experiences we can plug into it. Beyond just the five senses, these shared experiences will include emotional responses, sexual pleasure, and other mental reactions.-source KurzweilAbstract

This technology posits the streaming of real world sensations in a distributed manner.  Like virtual reality, but involving all the senses, and involving actual sensations from a real person.

I will say that it need not only be external senses, but internal emotions and thoughts could be shared too.  It is conceivable that even the sensation of desiring and willing and choosing an action could be transmitted, while the memories of the receiving person are blocked such that full synchrony occurs, with some translation, such that both individuals are experiencing everything exactly alike in practically all details, including inner sensations of the brain.

Now here's the thing, as has been stated by Kurzweil famous and infamous people could record their lives, and as I posit even their inner thoughts, emotions and sensation of free will and choice as well as the sensation of having done the actions committed.

A person experiencing the inner life of a noble person there would be no issue.  But what of an infamous person like say a dictator?   Theoretically the person would think and feel all that the dictator did, and make all the same choices, as it is a recording, while feeling they are actually making these choices freely unaware of their true self due to memory inhibition.   Yet despite making the same choices, despite being indistinguishable in act as well as in the sensory input they receive from what appears reality, indistinguishable from real, despite all this it still remains a record.

And given they are basically 'reading' a record, despite doing all the same actions and having all the same feelings and thoughts, despite this, since they have harmed no one or affected anyone but themselves, they have done nothing immoral.  It matters not what the dictator did, all the evil acts he committed, even if they themselves commit them too within a recording, their action's unlike the dictator's are moral.

Everything exactly the same, yet the truth, is it a recording?  Or is it actually affecting someone?  That makes all the difference and takes any action from ethical and moral to potentially immoral.

A record of history, in a sense, what happened, happened.  It cannot be changed.   Recording history and experiencing it, there is no issue with it.   No matter how detailed a record of an event, no matter how vivid, recording and remembering history will never be the same as the actuals events in history even if it is indistinguishable in feeling.