Jump to content

Are you an ethical photographer?


Recommended Posts

I don’t expect boundaries to be subject to whim.

By definition, a boundary is a limit.

Ethics, bound to principles are not fluid, by definition.

If you want to say you can choose to ignore or test the limit, out of ignorance or outright rebellion, you are correct, until you eventually run smack into the consequences that shut you down.

 

As for relating to a habit of seeking out or embracing evil or darkness to find goodness or light, I cannot.

Life delivers quite enough of the dark to make any attempt to create more, absurd. I have a healthy respect for the boundaries of Chaos. Somehow I don’t buy that people are pedaling poison to heal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don’t expect boundaries to be subject to whim.

By definition, a boundary is a limit.

Ethics, bound to principles are not fluid, by definition.

If you want to say you can choose to ignore or test the limit, out of ignorance or outright rebellion, you are correct, until you eventually run smack into the consequences that shut you down.

Why do you persist in speaking in generalities and not answering very direct questions about specific situations? You can use terms like "whim" all you like but unless you apply it to something we're specifically talking about, it simply acts as provocation for provocation's sake, something you seem not to particularly care for.

 

I keep asking you about specific situations where the boundaries of how we apply ethics to real situation have been moved and you keep responding not to those situations (like interracial marriage and the way we view people of different physical and mental abilities) but by avoiding them and instead referring to the general principles of ethics.

 

If you won't answer directly in your next post, I won't ask again and will consider this part of the conversation terminated from my perspective.

As for relating to a habit of seeking out or embracing evil or darkness to find goodness or light, I cannot.

Life delivers quite enough of the dark to make any attempt to create more, absurd. I have a healthy respect for the boundaries of Chaos. Somehow I don’t buy that people are pedaling poison to heal.

This speaks to your opinion very clearly. We don't have much in common in how we view art or the world.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A perfect opportunity for you to reflect......

Fine. I will do that after reminding you that what you just had was not a conversation or dialogue. You didn't address me or what I said directly, and you continuously deflected and dodged while trying to provoke with words like "whim," "ignorance," and "poison." I'll be quite content with a reflection for a while, or an actual conversation with someone else.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't address me or what I said directly,

 

But, but,.......

 

This speaks to your opinion very clearly

 

If you want to say you can choose to ignore or test the limit, out of ignorance or outright rebellion, you are correct, until you eventually run smack into the consequences that shut you down.

 

That’s Five times in one reply.....

Edited by Moving On
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s Five times in one reply.....

Moving On, saying the word "you" five times and characterizing what I said instead of actually specifically addressing what I said is really not having a conversation. Imputing ignorance also isn't addressing the substance of the topic at hand. I asked you six ways from Sunday to specifically address interracial marriage and its relationship to applying ethical boundaries and principles as well as the visibility a photograph can give to mentally and physically disabled people to help change our relationship to fellow humans and you come back with generic (mis)characterizations in the 2nd person. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically and directly, in testing, for example, the limits of the ethics of banning or morally condemning interracial marriage, what consequences that "shut you down" has the world run into?

That is no test of ethical limit.

That is a test of legal limit.

Surely you realize the fallacy of your premise.

You cannot have it both ways

Or are you being intentionally obtuse for dramatic effect.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't think there was a moral, aside from the legal, component to society's condemnation of interracial marriage, I don't know what to say.

 

I'll leave you with a series of photos that illustrate some of what I'm talking about. The law was in question but the photos made the ethics of it real to a wide audience.

 

LOVING

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the point was obvious......

But we can put it to a vote or “whim” now and again to see where the ethical boundary lies if you prefer......;)

 

You know, like the state whim on slavery, then freedom, then minimum sentencing. Marriage, then divorce, then child support, then daycare, then pain management, then opiate addiction......

Let’s just hope the ethical boundaries can keep up.

Edited by Moving On
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the point was obvious......

I don't know what point you're talking about. My point is that photographs of interracial couples helped people who had been condemning interracial couples as a moral abomination to see them as ok and human. That took place while legal battles were. So the point is that the application of ethical boundaries to interracial couples could be pushed by photography.

 

I don't know what point you think is obvious.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethics and law are not the same thing. We agree. I don’t know why you made that point. Now how ‘bout addressing the actual point of photos helping people see and change their moral outlook toward others, which is what I mean by pushing boundaries. That’s the ethics I’ve been talking about and you’ve been not addressing.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, Inoneeye and I talked about photos pushing boundaries. You’ve used the words whim and ignorance to vaguely characterize that. I’ve explained to you I’m not in favor changing or overturning ethical principles but rather pointing to photography’s ability to help is apply those principles in ways we hadn’t been. You have not directly responded to examples of photography having done or attempted to do that.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually haven’t even acknowledged that there’s a difference between trashing ethical principles and applying ethical principles to various situations, instead preferring to conflate them and insist I’m trying to eliminate ethics instead of trying to acknowledge that ethical stances have changed toward certain things and people over time, sometimes aided by the visibility and challenge a photo can bring.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again.

As Simple as I can be.

As Direct as I can be.

Photographs are not my ethical compass.

 

I expect others use them in an attempt to influence the ethics of others, but to less effect than they wish to believe.

I see considerable evidence darker images lead to darker minds, not enlightened ethics. I gave a clear example of the exception with specific reasons for the difference.

 

That is quite the best I think I can offer.

Edited by Moving On
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add, I think photos can influence without that being the intent of the photographer. Photographers may just opt to show and make visible different worlds and people may see them and respond in all sorts of ways. One of the joys of photography is watching photos take on lives of their own well beyond attempts of the photographers who made them. Another joy is watching photographers able to influence the world in a positive way. This, of course, does not make photography a moral compass as much as it can sometimes make it a moral vehicle.
  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

ethical implies the person HAS ethics.

 

Most do not. As genuine and true ethics are unfailingly applied. See requirements united states military code of justice.

 

there are nude beaches in california. In the united states it is LEGAL to photograph anyone in public places due to the legal fact there is no legal way for a person to say "i was in the train station with 600 people but i expected complete privacy when i took my pants off".

 

A person on the beach sees a really nice girl running around naked or topless, its LEGAL to take photos, but is it ethical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the situation, the photo, and other things we don't know in the hypothetical you provide.

 

Thats the situation. Person with camera on a nudie beach in California, with all state and federal laws pertaining to photography in public applying to the beach. The naked or topless female running about...

 

The way you asked your reply would make me worried about your ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...