From: wc9583@writer.yorku.ca (J.Marc Chabot)
Subject: Ethics and Holodeck
Originator: wc9583@grant
Organization: Computer Assisted Writing Centre, York University, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:36:36 GMT

	First off, let me say that I know that discussions of the
Holodeck and other systems on the Enterprise are usually to be taken
to rec.arts.startrek.tech, but what I want to discuss here seems more
appropriatelly placed in here.  Let me furthermore add that the
position (if one can call it that) which I take in this post is not a
new one.  I have personally posted on the topic quite a few times
before and I know that quite a few other people have too.  So if you
don't want to read another post about how what goes on in the Holodeck
has an impact on what goes on outside of it, hit "n" now.

	Now then, let me state what I think.  It has been suggested
many times that the Holodeck could be used by a crewmember for the
fulfilment of that individual's sexual desires towards another
crewmember (usually the exemple used is Wes Crusher and Troi, but
let's stick to abstracts here...)  If we assume that the reason why
such behaviour is taking place is because the object of desire has
rejected the first crewmember's advances, we can therefore say that
consent was not given by the person desired.  Outside of the Holodeck,
if the first individual was to force a sexual encounter upon the
person he or she desires, we would call it rape.  Inside the Holodeck,
things are quite different.

	As everyone probably knows, the Holodeck replicates
situations, persons, props etc... giving the person calling up or
creating a program the ability to immerse oneself completely within a
specified scene.  The persons replicated in the Holodeck are not real
in any sense of the word, i.e. they are not "alive".  In effect, one
could say that they are nothing more that three dimensional pictures
that move around and have texture and density.

	When a person goes in the Holodeck to fulfil a fantasy such as
I mentionned above, if we assume that the reason he or she does so is
because the "real" person (the one outside the Holodeck) rejected the
advances (i.e. did not consent), then if sexual activity does take
place with a replica of the uninterested crewmember, I cannot help but
feel that some sort of wrong has been committed against this person.
In other words, if someone did not agree to have their image used in
such a way, then if someone uses their image in the Holodeck they have
been victimized.

	There are parallels in our society.  Models in pornographic
magazines have to sign releases (ie consent) to have their pictures
printed, same goes for actors in pornographic movies.  But that's not
all.  Why do you think athletes get so much money to endorse sports
products, cereals and soft drinks?  Because if a company used their
image to promote their wares without their consent, they would be in
trouble with the law.  I think there is a strong parallel between the
two.

	The issue here is not whether the replicated-image is real or
not, it isn't.  It is not about sex being wrong, it isn't.  The real
issue here is consent.  The way I think of it, I would not want
someone using my image towards sexual gratification without my
consent.  Not only would it be morally wrong but also quite
embarassing if it ever came to light in public.  If consent was given
then there would be no problem.

	My position used to be a lot more rigid, but as I talked about
it with many people before this post, points were made which made me
soften it somewhat.  For instance, I held that using someone's replica
in the Holodeck without their expressed consent was a form of rape.
This was softened down to an issue of lesser magnitude (as it is
apparent in my use af the athletes endorsing products), ie use of an
image.  Yet, even though I have formulated this softer position, I
still can't help that there is something more than just consent to the
use of an image here...

	What do YOU think?

Best Regards,

J.Marc Chabot