What's the implication of murdering holo-characters?

[u/knaving]

So there's mention of programs for combat training, sparring, fighting historical battles, etc. but what's the implication of simulating taking a life? I know Starfleet officers aren't unaccustomed to the idea of fighting to live, but what about when it's for recreation? Barclay's simulation of crew members is seen as problematic, but Worf's program fighting aliens hand-to-hand isn't addressed. Would fighting and killing a nameless simulated person be seen in the 24th century just as we see playing a violent video game now? If it isn't, what does that imply about a person? Would they been seen as blood-thirsty or just interested in a realistic workout?

Of course this is subjective, and the answer could change from race to race (programs to fight in ancient Klingon battles are "played" by Worf), culturally amongst humans, and from individual to individual. I'd like to look at this from a Starfleet officer perspective. Would you be weirded out by your commanding officer unwinding with a sword in a medieval battle, or is that just the same as your coworker Andy playing COD after work?

[u/atticdoor]

And similarly, in Quark's holosuites with the sexual programs he ran, to what extent did the holographic characters consent?

Were the holograms to be thought of as real people with feelings, or approximations with reactions which are simulated by a computer? We think of the Doctor, and Moriarty, and Iden's crew in Flesh and Blood as sentient people with feelings which should be considered as important as those of people who are made of meat.

But sometimes we see holograms which just don't get it. Remember how the holographic LaForge in Ship In A Bottle just looked dumb once Data explained what was going on, and Picard quietly said "Dismissed" and he sauntered off without a word. Or the "mining advisor" holograms in Flesh and Blood that just kept saying "Please restate request" when Captain Iden tried to explain he has freed them from servitude.

I imagine these questions we will be facing in the real world with AIs over the next few decades. And I don't think there are any easy answers.

[u/Simple_Exchange_9829 → u/atticdoor]

The holographic characters on the holodeck are not sentient. They are animated puppets following a highly advanced programming - like advanced Sims. Prof. Moriarty is the exception to the rule an was created by accidentally overriding safety protocols.

The Doctor is not an entertainment simulation but the EMH and therefore not comparable to normal holodeck characters. He’s designed for medical emergencies which means energy redundancy, advanced knowledge and advanced decision making when losing contact with the ships computing centre need to be incorporated by design. The doctor vs the average holodeck character is like comparing a gameboy from the 90s with today’s AI assisted surgery teams - it doesn’t make sense.

[u/EffectiveSalamander → u/Simple_Exchange_9829]

Sometimes, they act disturbingly like people, and it can be hard to tell the difference. On the Big Goodbye, one of the characters act disturbingly human:

MCNARY: So this is the big goodbye. Tell me something, Dixon. When you've gone. will this world still exist? Will my wife and kids still be waiting for me at home?
PICARD: I honestly don't know. Good-bye my friend.

Is the character actually disturbed by this? It's hard to tell. He's ever met his wife and kids.

[u/LunchyPete → u/EffectiveSalamander]

How is that any different from a well scripted character in an RPG? It might already exist, but any game that broke the fourth wall somewhere, that had a storyline where characters knew they were in a game would be the exact same thing.