Morality and the Holodeck - slightly different question

[Timo]

...But she may still be the only one available. When enlisting in Starfleet, you probably have to suck it up and tolerate many a thing that civilian life would not force you to go through. Both Troi and Barclay may have had to waive a long list of civil rights and comforts when taking the Starfleet oath, and this is one of the rare occasions where this comes back to bite them in practice.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pavonis]

Frankly, she can no longer be a completely impartial & objective therapist

Aside from the fact that there never seemed to be any other psychologists or psychiatrists aboard besides Troi (and what kind of therapist doesn't have a therapist of their own?), Troi's empathy must leave her feeling all the various levels of sexual attraction to her from the rest of the crew. If she's not supposed to treat Barclay because he is sexually attracted to her, how can she treat any of the crew? Even Picard might have a low-level subconscious sexual attraction to her, yet she works with him regularly. I must conclude that Troi is able to be impartial about the crew's sexual attraction to her, if only because she's able to interact normally with the crew.

 

[Dream]

I must conclude that Troi is able to be impartial about the crew's sexual attraction to her, if only because she's able to interact normally with the crew.

I consider it pretty normal to be attracted to someone that is good looking. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Oso Blanco]

How would you feel is someone had a RealDoll made that looked just like you?

That would certainly be strange, but how would I even know about it? How do I know that nobody has such a doll already? I guess that person would have some serious mental problems, though ... I hope they got the beer belly right ...

Is that really any different than pulling up a porn image now and photoshopping someone else's head on it?

As long as you keep this photoshopped image to yourself, who cares? And where do you draw the line here? What about non photoshopped images? Let's be honest guys, haven't we all had moments in our lives when all we had was a picture of the girl we were absolutely crazy about and drooling all over this picture was the closest we would ever get to this girl? Let he who is without sin ... and so on.

 

[Third Nacelle]

It's quite different from just photoshopping an image, or stimulating yourself with a random photo from Facebook. It's a full on simulation of a person that looks, sounds, smells, and feels like that person.

I wouldn't think there'd be anything illegal about creating a hologram from memory or imagination, but what about creating holograms from tricorder scans or transporter patterns? That's where it gets icky.

 

[Stoo]

^^I wonder where you'd draw the line tho, since there would be a range of technologies in between a photo and a "solid" hologram. Like, what about just a foot-tall non-tangible holo-image (of worf teabagging riker) on a desk projector? If someone faps to that should the senior staff be notified?

 

[R. Star]

It's only different because the technology is better.

 

[yousirname]

IMO the only real point of difference between this and imagination is the potential for libel and/or blackmail. Say for example that I create a holodeck program where Beverly Crusher subjects me to repeated sexual harassment. I record my activities and present the recording as veridical - ie, claiming that the events it depicts really happened. Or I could happily accede to holo-Crusher's solicitations and record that to claim it really happened - or threaten to do so.

That's ethically, of course. Legally speaking, if enough people are creeped out by the idea, most likely a law will be passed. I believe, for example, that in Sweden, it is in fact illegal to create pornographic images of someone without their consent (ie, it's against the law to save someone's FB pics and shop their faces into an explicit image).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ If somebody tried that, I would like to think there'd be a trail of evidence that could prove the events weren't real. It may be as simple as asking the computer if there are any records of it being done on the holodeck. And nobody's going to take anything holodeck-related on face value anyway, are they?

 

[Charles Phipps]

Janeway's reaction to the Doctor painting nude Seven and being Captain was understanding it's his fantasy life.

If there were ever an RL situation, though, I imagine there'd be laws against replicating people without their permission.

 

[R. Star]

Janeway's reaction to the Doctor painting nude Seven and being Captain was understanding it's his fantasy life.

Yeah.. that one surprised me at the time. Janeway did exactly the -right- thing. She apologized for intruding upon his personal fantasies.

 

[JarodRussell]

I wonder if decades ago people had similar discussions when photography replaced paintings.

If there were ever an RL situation, though, I imagine there'd be laws against replicating people without their permission.

For comercial use, yes. For non-comercial use, you should have the right to do whatever the hell you want. Should there be laws against drawing and painting people without their permission? Creating CG models of them?

Should every celebrity be notified when someone jerks off to one of their images in the Babe of the Week threads?

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Two things that would greatly affect the ability to create whatever fantasies one wanted on the holodeck: first, there don't seem to be any fully private holodecks (even Quark's requires special arrangements to draw from station power); second, the use of medical records to create holographic images. LaForge's image of Leah Brahms, made by asking the computer to access Starfleet records, should be more problematic than if someone programmed from memory an image of a living person (which Data did in Unification).

 

[yousirname]

Two things that would greatly affect the ability to create whatever fantasies one wanted on the holodeck: first, there don't seem to be any fully private holodecks (even Quark's requires special arrangements to draw from station power);

Jeffrey Combs' character says he has one in the episode where he wants Quark to get Kira's image.

second, the use of medical records to create holographic images. LaForge's image of Leah Brahms, made by asking the computer to access Starfleet records, should be more problematic than if someone programmed from memory an image of a living person (which Data did in Unification).

I'd imagine in that specific instance that LaForge is authorised to view those records. Use of them for that purpose, it depends - either there's a regulation or there isn't and there appears not to be. Obviously I agree that the general case of using stored data is more problematic than creation from memory.

ETA it occurs to me that it might be arguable that Data's memory is different to that of a biological lifeform and should be treated as computer memory for this and similar purposes (cf. Data's role as 'court record' during the trial in EaF).

^ If somebody tried that, I would like to think there'd be a trail of evidence that could prove the events weren't real. It may be as simple as asking the computer if there are any records of it being done on the holodeck. And nobody's going to take anything holodeck-related on face value anyway, are they?

On an episode of TNG, it would be that simple. But this doesn't have to take place on a 'closed system' like a starship. The holodeck used to create it need not be connected to any database or suchlike that would allow tracing its creation.

The best way through is probably some [tech] feature of holo-images that makes them resistant to recording devices. And some more [tech] to explain why Geordi and Data aren't blind in the holodeck because of it.

 

[Maurice]

Let's be honest guys, haven't we all had moments in our lives when all we had was a picture of the girl we were absolutely crazy about and drooling all over this picture was the closest we would ever get to this girl? Let he who is without sin ... and so on.

I can cast the first stone. That's never ever happened to me.

Seriously.




But then, I'm gay, which people routinely forget when they say" every man" or "all guys".

 

[Tulin]

Hologram or not, it's still you.

Oh, God.