Are Imprints People?

[Valjavertjinn]

This has always been something I've wondered about. Take Doctor Saunders for example. If someone put a new imprint in and "deleted" her, would that technically be killing her, since she was her own personality? What about all the imprints they create, use once, and then toss aside? Since they have their own hopes and ambitions and dreams, what makes them any less of a person than a "real" person? Where does the line between humanity and artificiality begin, and does it matter?

 

[Blaze]

This has always been something I've wondered about. Take Doctor Saunders for example. If someone put a new imprint in and "deleted" her, would that technically be killing her, since she was her own personality? What about all the imprints they create, use once, and then toss aside? Since they have their own hopes and ambitions and dreams, what makes them any less of a person than a "real" person? Where does the line between humanity and artificiality begin, and does it matter?

This is exactly what I like about this series. It's that we can't really answer those questions and it forces us to thing about humanity. You're right in bringing the question or wheter those imprints are any less of a person than you and me. The reality is that nowadays, we actually can clone people, or imprint artificial intelligence like Dollhouse. Cloning is illegal in almost all country, but the truth is if we wanted to make this happen we could. Really, I don't think humanity is based on where we came from, but from what we do. For all I care a clone artificially inseminated organism could be much more human than any human on this Earth right now.

In my mind, the term "real" is overrated. If something can exist in this world, than it is real.

 

[white avenger]

Assuming that the imprint is nothing more than a group of selected character traits and memories, I don't see how reprogramming the host with new data could actually be called murder. Of course, this could lead to a very complex discussion as to what actually makes a person unique, and if changing any or all of those things actually destroys the "real" person. Legally, I don't see how that could be called murder. Also, for all that we know, any or all of the support team could have themselves been dolls who have been programmed to fulfill specific jobs within the organization.

 

[Valjavertjinn]

This is exactly what I like about this series. It's that we can't really answer those questions and it forces us to thing about humanity.

Agreed. The show is wonderfully thought-provoking.

Assuming that the imprint is nothing more than a group of selected character traits and memories, I don't see how reprogramming the host with new data could actually be called murder. Of course, this could lead to a very complex discussion as to what actually makes a person unique, and if changing any or all of those things actually destroys the "real" person.

That's sort of where I was going with this! The definition of humanity is a complex and tricky topic. In the show, certain characters make a big deal about how Dolls aren't real, sometimes citing that the "real" person's soul will always remain true to the original personality. As somebody who doesn't believe in the concept of souls, this argument doesn't really do much for me.
Using only what we know of the world around us, what makes an imprint different than any other person? They have memories, personalities, fears, and hopes. Granted, these might have been programmed into them, but everyone has traits that are already programmed into them by instinct, evolution, and basic human need.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

This has always been something I've wondered about. Take Doctor Saunders for example. If someone put a new imprint in and "deleted" her, would that technically be killing her, since she was her own personality? What about all the imprints they create, use once, and then toss aside? Since they have their own hopes and ambitions and dreams, what makes them any less of a person than a "real" person? Where does the line between humanity and artificiality begin, and does it matter?

The coolest thing about Dollhouse was, for me, the way it inspired people to discuss the ethics of medical advances.

I always saw the imprints as sort of downloads - it didn't erase who they were already, it just sort of replaced it for a while? Does that make sense? When they were wiped, their personality, memories, etc were gone, but now their soul, or essence.

I have not watched Dollhouse since it aired - I say it's time for a rewatch!

Who's down?

 

[Taake]

It's a hard question... I mean they have thoughts, feelings, emotions and memories... they don't know these things aren't "real" and if you tell them they still feel as though they were real because it's all they know/remember. Meaning that technically they are fully-formed and functioning individuals.

If the imprint wasn't erased it is likely the imprinted body would just go on and live its life like a normal person. Dr. Saunder's e.g. lived on and evolved in her 'permanent' print (before finding out she was an imprint but what are the chances of that for a Doll outside the Dollhouse?).

Although I suppose that the imprints could start 'glitching' at some point without proper maintenance or under pressure (like Echo's imprint in "Ghost" and "Gray Hour") which could cause fragmentations to their personality... because it's fabricated.

So yes and no.
An imprint would certainly think it's a person and it would remain so, until wiped, even with potential problems. But ultimately they are fabricated products of technology. That said it is, to my mind, in a sense 'murder' to delete them. Because they never knew they were temporary, they never knew they weren't real, they are made to be 'like real', and just because the body goes on doesn't mean a wrong hasn't been done. (although arguably one could say that it is wrong to imprint someone in the first place, deleting them later on is just piling on)