The Ethics of Star Trek: Holograms' Rights

Thanks to WYMM for accepting. I anticipate that this will be a fun debate! Before I begin, I want to note that I may be using arguments from other debates I've had on DDO; I say this to avoid any accusations of self-plagiarism and to be up-front with the issue. This is not prohibited by the rules of the debate.MY CASEC1. A Fundamental Due: Needless SufferingSC1. Preventing Needless Suffering is a Fundamental DuePerhaps the most fundamental due we ascribe to beings is the right to be free from needless or wanton suffering. In fact, one could make the argument that one of the primary purposes of rights is to prevent needless suffering. A person denied of liberty, unable to own property, and without any guarantees of bodily integrity is a person apt to be subject to needless suffering, and so the existence of these rights shields against that likelihood. Moreover, we can claim that even if preventing needless suffering weren't a goal or justification for the existence of certain rights, we can affirm that it does coincide with the moral community's understanding of rights and justice--someone who is needlessly suffering is, by necessity, having at least one of their rights violated and is being treated unjustly.A third and final justification for the importance of preventing needless suffering is an appeal to the idea of Justice itself. Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due. Needless suffering is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor due--it is, by its very nature, needless.SC2. The Holograms in Question can SufferThe available evidence indicates that the Holograms in question can indeed suffer. The Yaderan colonists, for instance, exhibit genuine fear, love, happiness, etc. during the episode "Shadowplay." Chief Security Office Odo specifically observes that: "they appear to think, feel, and reproduce." [1] The same is true of Moriarty, who displayed love, fear of death, and so forth. [2]The Doctor most certainly is capable of feeling, and even of experience emotional pain: "He even contemplated deactivating it permanently after his 'daughter' was fatally wounded in an accident and he could not take the pain that came with losing her. However, Tom Paris helped The Doctor learn to cope with the negatives as well as the positives in having a family and The Doctor returned to the program to mourn the loss of his daughter with his wife and son." [3] C2. Give and TakeRelationships where one party uses the other as a tool merit some kind of compensation for the party used as a tool. An employer uses his employees as tool, and so he must pay them. Give and take is a concept naturally intertwined with justice. If we imagine justice as a scale (return to the idea of fairness), then it would be unbalanced (unfair) if I failed to give back. If that employer takes your time without paying you, then the scale tips noticeably in his favor. Similarly, when a thief steals, we acknowledge the victim's right to be reimbursed for the value of the stolen object(s). It seems obviously unfair and unreasonable to take from holograms, without giving anything in return. For instance, it seems unfair to demand of the Doctor that he treat the wounded, while denying him the right to engage in pastimes or enjoy recreation.C3: Interests of their OwnSC1. Interests are Linked with Rights"Now, there is a very important insight expressed in the requirement that a being have interests if he is to be a logically proper subject of rights. This can be appreciated if we consider just why it is that mere things cannot have rights. Consider a very precious 'mere thing'--a beautiful natural wilderness, or a complex and ornamental artifact, like the Taj Mahal. Such things ought to be cared for, because they would sink into decay if neglected, depriving some human beings or perhaps even all human beings, of something of great value. Certain persons may even have as their own special job the care and protection of these valuable objects. But we are not tempted in these cases to speak of "thing-rights" correlative to custodial duties, because, try as we might, we cannot think of mere things as possessing interests of their own. Some people may have a duty to preserve, maintain, or improve the Taj Mahal; but they can hardly have a duty to help or hurt it, benefit or aid it, succor or relieve it. Custodians may protect it for the sake of a nation's pride and art lovers' fancy; but they don't keep it in good repair for 'its own sake,' or for 'its own true welfare,' or 'well-being.' A mere thing, however valuable to others, has no good of its own." [4]SC2. The Holograms in Question are Not "Mere Things"Clearly, the holograms have a "good" of their own--a good attested to by Moriarty's own fear of death. Once their sentience is realized, they acquire the ability to pursue purposes, to self-actualize, and this constitutes their welfare. Just as my rights protect my ability to pursue happiness (they have utility in that respect), holograms' rights would do the same for them. It would allow them to access their dreams without fear of losing that chance or having it unjustly degraded. A chair cannot hope to have purposes or a welfare of its own, yet a hologram does have these things. Therefore, it has interests, the denial of which would be a wrong.I apologize for the brevity of my arguments, but as I am running out of time, I will leave things there. Over to Con...!SOURCES1 - http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)2 - http://en.memory-alpha.org...3 - http://en.memory-alpha.org...(hologram)4 - http://www.animal-rights-library.com...