Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

<p>My thinking on this was triggered by the beginning of an article that I just tried to read:</p>

<p>http://chronicle.com/article/Dont-Look-Away/125241/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en</p>

<p>(I cannot read the entire thing because my subscription ran out. Nor have I read the book cited.)</p>

<p>We have heard discussions about the ethics of shooting the homeless, of shooting corpses, etc. In what ways (if any) are photos of those who are about to die different? Are they even more poignant or compelling? Is so, why? (For that matter, are they more revolting?)</p>

<p>Are there other <em>verboten</em> subjects that deserve to be considered or reconsidered in terms of the ethics of photography?</p>

<p>(May I interject at this point that I think that we need the subfields of philosophy--at the very least "ethics"--as our possible categories. "History" is either too limiting, or too broad, depending on one's point of view.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

<p>I have access to the article and just read it. (Sorry, I don't have the right to reproduce it.) It is actually a review of two books of interest to photographers, <em>The Cruel Radiance: Photography and Political Violence</em>, by Susie Linfield, and <em>The Boy: A Holocaust Story</em>, by Dan Porat. Both books deal with the photographing of prisoners of the Nazis during the Holocaust, prisoners who, with few exceptions, were murdered shortly after the photographs were made, and with the ethics of making those photographs available for viewing.</p>

<p>To me, such photographs are an important part of the public record. Hiding such photographs, in an effort provide victims with a small measure posthumous privacy and dignity, is misguided, as I see it. It helps hide crimes which some people still deny ever occurred. I believe that photographs of the victims of the Holocaust, Jews, Romani, and Slavs, who died in the Nazi camps, should be widely available. That includes the photographs of my great-grandparents (my paternal grandmother's parents) both nearly a hundred years old when they were taken away. My family does not have photographs of them. I wish we did. I would display them at home with other family pictures, and I am sure we would have no objection to making them public.</p>

Posted
<p>As with so many ethical questions about a given act, it comes down to: <em>why?</em> Is the photograph a gloating or deliberately ghoulish portrayal? Or is it a Leibovitz-Sontag-esque expression of love and looming loss? Is it stark history, as Hector points out, or is it hamfisted editorializing? I don't think we can talk about it in broad terms, without some context.</p>
Posted

<p>Generally, these photos have a tendency to humanize what was going to take place and in that vein, they also tend to make us more sympathetic to the person and more aware of the cruelty of the crime or act. How often do we see any photos of someone going to the gas chamber or the electric chair in actual cases--cameras are prohibited, we only see the mug shots of the person that was executed. In such cases, there might be ethical issues to showing them right before the act and it wouldn't probably end up serving the retention of capital punishment either.</p>

<p>But, going back to criminal activity or war crime, reading about stuff isn't as powerful as looking into eyes of the people being talked about and so I do believe it can serve its purpose--and be manipulated as well for that matter.</p>

Posted

<p>No Golden Rule here.</p>

<p>Pictures of holocaust: yes. Greater value to history and remembrance than to individual privacy. I've never heard a family member of a holocaust victim express concern over pictures they've seen.</p>

<p>Paparazzi pics of famous person in coffin sneaked with telefoto lens: probably no.</p>

<p>Leibovitz photos of dying Sontag: two sides. Leibovitz vs. Sontag's son.</p>

<p>No guidelines. Personal ethics. No concrete answer to the Leibovitz matter . . . two legitimate competing claims. No outside help. Must make up my own mind or even, perhaps, remain ambivalent or . . . conflicted! I went with Leibovitz on this one but don't have any theorems or postulates that got me there.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Posted

<p>I suppose there are also, in addition to what has alerady been mentioned in connection with the intent of the photo, considerations to be made about of whom the photo is taken. There is, to some minds at least, a difference between someone about to be executed, someone in battle, someone dying in bed of illness (and here, I suppose one could distinghuish further between someone who, given the right conditions might've survived and someone who, with all the insurance and medical attention in the world is still going to die), and so on and so forth.</p>

<p>I too, think these photos a matter of historical record, and they should not be avoided or kept secret. Definitely not.</p>

<p>Are there other subjects, that need reconsidering from an ethics point of view? I suppose there are not so few. Paparazzi (sp?) shots, photos of religious ceremonies/places of worship, crime, photos that might hinder environmental awareness etc.</p>

Posted

<p>I don't think ethics exist entirely outside oneself. They are something we share with our culture, and presumably with cultures with whom we relate. </p>

<p>For example, the Navajo people around me have ethical considerations that I feel "should" be honored even though they're not my own. For example, they seem to treat indebtedness and thankfulness as less important than behavior. If I think a Navajo person owes me, I'm probably mistaken. But s/he will probably return the favor, given enough time. Therefore I "should" probably be careful about my expectations. This is both a practical and ethical matter.</p>

<p>Navajo people are typically less casual about death than are Anglo and Hispanic people around here. They don't want to talk about it. That's a "taboo" but probably not an ethical matter for them. On the other hand, knowing the little I know about their death issues, I think it'd be highly unethical for me to involve myself in their dying process...by photographing them.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are parallel issues with other cultures, and most of us do live in multi-cultural communities, Walmart homogization notwithstanding.</p>

Posted

<p>Yes, there are ethical issues, and cultural ones, too.<br>

I believe in letting the light in. Even when the intent of the photographer is clearly malevolent.</p>

<p>I think of the famous photograph of the Lincoln Assassination Conspirator, Payne, awaiting his hanging:</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/lewis_payne_lincoln_conspirator_1865_poster-p228057835178629146qzz0_400.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/lewis_payne_lincoln_conspirator_1865_poster-228057835178629146&h=400&w=400&sz=33&tbnid=K6PuNwF3sZR0dM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLincoln%2Bconspirator%2B%252Bphotographs&zoom=1&q=Lincoln+conspirator+%2Bphotographs&hl=en&usg=__giFu3_agUb9q8oHdlzXcrZ_p0Qk=&sa=X&ei=SxTcTOPdO8Gs8AaE75SMCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ9QEwAg</p>

<p>And Roman Vishniac's pictures of ghettoized Jews, whom he knew were doomed:</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423904078_112726_roman-vishniac.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artnet.com/artwork/423932683/423904078/carpatho-ruthenia.html&usg=__HP25-DvOWMP4teIYhq76BsDVOM4=&h=480&w=501&sz=29&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=vaa9pmylxeyoSM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=73&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRoman%2BVishniac%2Bphotographs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D792%26bih%3D396%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C114&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=88&vpy=35&dur=6585&hovh=220&hovw=229&tx=128&ty=134&ei=NRXcTK_hO4L88AbbhY2oCQ&oei=NRXcTK_hO4L88AbbhY2oCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=792&bih=396</p>

<p>How he kept it together, I don't know...</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423904078_112726_roman-vishniac.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artnet.com/artwork/423932683/423904078/carpatho-ruthenia.html&usg=__HP25-DvOWMP4teIYhq76BsDVOM4=&h=480&w=501&sz=29&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=vaa9pmylxeyoSM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=73&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRoman%2BVishniac%2Bphotographs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D792%26bih%3D396%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C114&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=88&vpy=35&dur=6585&hovh=220&hovw=229&tx=128&ty=134&ei=NRXcTK_hO4L88AbbhY2oCQ&oei=NRXcTK_hO4L88AbbhY2oCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&biw=792&bih=396</p>

<p>and...</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.artnet.com/WebServices/picture.aspx%3Fdate%3D20081021%26catalog%3D147487%26gallery%3D111588%26lot%3D00098%26filetype%3D2&imgrefurl=http://www.artnet.com/artists/lotdetailpage.aspx%3Flot_id%3DDF34AA7560B04C9B5B94ED5D239DFD56&usg=__yXGRpQKOggm6SAEbQDv2qaYVx-M=&h=480&w=476&sz=143&hl=en&start=23&zoom=1&tbnid=laqMkftc3HI_FM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRoman%2BVishniac%2Bphotographs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D792%26bih%3D396%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C6840%2C684&um=1&itbs=1&ei=JxbcTJexJpDevQOW6eyhCg&iact=hc&vpx=583&vpy=141&dur=179&hovh=168&hovw=166&tx=74&ty=88&oei=qRXcTJHqI4O78gbIrKmnCQ&esq=3&page=3&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:23&biw=792&bih=396</p>

<p>Yes, I know he embellished.</p>

<p> </p>

Posted

<blockquote>

<p>In what ways (if any) are photos of those who are about to die different? Are they even more poignant or compelling? Is so, why? (For that matter, are they more revolting?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>mainly they are different because it confronts us with our own unease about dealing with that. That in my experience is what is most predominant here. Death is not called the last taboo for nothing.<br>

The answer to your question is a matter of context. On the whole however I can see no subjects that are or should be <em>verboten</em>.</p>

<p>I've dealt for many years professionally with dying people and although this may seems strange, in some ways I've had the best time ever there. Perhaps it's because everyone reverts to genuine emotions, all pretense is gone and while it was often sad there was laughter as well. I never did myself but I can see no reason why one couldn't photograph there if people would permit. Revolting? Not in any way</p>

<p>Photographically I did a assignment in a morgue once. Key there was preserving dignity and I did. It was a far cry from what Andres Serrano did but Serrano's morgue photos are of course very confronting. Is that a bad thing? I'm not too sure. Personally I think he created a great and interesting series. Revolting? I think it very much depends on one's perspective.</p>

<p>A different kind of context then.</p>

<p>Let's be honest, we're all a bunch of hypocrits. We see people dying in Africa while shoving a triple hamburger into our mouth, we've become desensitised to what the TV presents us with. We merely look mildy interested at people being blown to bits in a far away country if we're not in some way personally involved.</p>

<p>What ethics are there involved in a PJ covering the war in Iracq or Afghanistan? Again a matter of context. Read up on for instance McCullin or Nachtwey. There's no denying it's had a profound impact on their personal life at a huge cost. Who would want that? I wouldn't but at the same time I'm glad that some do. These photos, as do the Holocaust photos, serve, if nothing else a historical purpose.</p>

<p>As for the Leibovitz debate I think it's both impossible and pretentious to declare an absolute opinion there because it's so deeply personal. I can fully understand your hesitation Fred.<br>

When my father was dying it never even occurred to me to photograph that process. Not that he would have minded or that I couldn''t have done it emotianally. It's just that especially those last week where so intense, joyfully and valuable that it never occurred to me. But neither he nor I would have felt uncomfortable about it if I had.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>reading about stuff isn't as powerful as looking into eyes of the people being talked about</p>

</blockquote>

<p>key sentence I think</p>

 

Posted

<p>Luis, the Payne photo is quite remarkable (taken in a pit where Payne awaited his sort) because he is is dead (history or fact) and he is going to die (photograph), also because we are seeing a very healthy young man who might have chosen a different life (incidentally, he was attempting to assassinate an elected high government official, but not Lincoln). The photograph renews the drama, and allows an insight into the apparent strength or resolve of the person that otherwise would probably not exist.</p>

<p>The young jewish woman, naked in a pit in Russia (Babi Yar) with other victims, had no choice. She modestly covers her naked breasts before an army photographer, yet is soon to be machine gunned down with the others. But she shows her humanity and her training to the end.</p>

<p>Both of these persons are about to die. Do their photos serve a useful end? Hopefully so. Taking pictures of dying family members or friends is difficult. We have a relation with them that should be stronger I think than the will to document. The photos of their healthy days are of greater importance, are they not?</p>

Posted

<p>Arthur, taking a photo can be more than documenting. Why wouldn't taking the photo be part of the relationship? When I photograph someone, that <em>is</em> relationship, and it's strong.</p>

<p>In answer to your last question, to some, each day of a life is of equal importance and to some the last days may be of greater importance. I may well value my time with my mother in her last weeks more than other periods in our lives. I didn't photograph her then and I don't think she would have wanted to be photographed. But if the person or situation were different (and I wasn't photographing seriously then), I can imagine wanting or needing to photograph such a time.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Posted

<p>Death to me is not the opposite of life, it's the opposite of birth. Life is eternal, especially in photographs.</p>

<p>While "opposite's" I don't see why there would be an ethical issue in making and displaying photos of those about to die as I don't see one in the making and displaying of photos of those about to be born either.</p>

<p>The ethical issue then seems to be not in the dying but in the manner of dying ( through violence ), which however hasn't anything to do with photography or with photos, but with the things the photos describe or the camera is pointed at.</p>

<p> </p>

Posted

<p>Life and death. we tend to make a person's dying <br>

a special thing for a short while and then forget about it.<br>

Widows and widowers are often neglected after a few weeks or months when more attwention should be given.</p>

<p>I recall a movie about the Holocost where they portriaied a young man who had been starved and neglected nearly to the point of death. American soldiers / recurers were told by doctors that nothing could be done, the only thing to do was to treat the young man kindly as he had reached the point of no return. A soulder stayed with this person until the end.</p>

<p>Whenb the actor who played Hamilton Burger in Perry Mason and when Yul Brunner was dying of lung cancer.<br>

they had TV commercials for the American cancer society.<br>

Even thugh these men were dying and looked really bad.<br>

those commercials should have been run over and over to warn others,.<br>

Instead they were only seen a few times.<br>

TOO TOUGH to watch? sure that is why we all should be reminded.<br>

Lung Cancer from smoking is similar to pregnancy<br>

Toy cannot just be a little pregnant or have a LITTLE lung cancer.<br>

One has a happy ending the other always has a sad ending.</p>

<p>Aged relatives? Take photos while they still are health so grand-kids can remember them<br>

I read that in europe phoptos of the deceased are often on the gravestones<br>

this would be unthinkable here in the USA.</p>

Posted

<p>In San Francisco, in the 80s, a company created tombstones with audio tape machines and photos. It's far from "unthinkable," at least in the civilized parts of the US. I don't know how well the idea sold. but some were installed in Colma, the town of the dead just south of The City. The idea was that you could go to your relative's grave and, I guess, push a button to hear something in that person's voice. I wonder if they replaced the tape drives with SD cards? </p>

<p>In New Mexico, right now, tombstones and descansos (roadside monuments to people who died on the spot) often have photos.</p>

<p>Richard Avedon did a moving series of portraits of his dying father, standing. He exhibited them printed life-size.</p>

<p>I photographed my mother in late stages, standing and walking, emaciated and barely lucid. She'd been a photographer since she was 19 (processed Agfa/Ansco slides of the World's Fair on Treasure Island). I think being photographed may have been seen by her as a responsibility at 84.</p>

Posted

<p>I think the ethics of it depend on your intention. If you're doing it to document, I don't see a problem. If you're doing it to have photos of dead people, that's pretty messed up and disrespectful.</p>

<p>It also depends on presentation too. Weegee (sp?) made a career out of it. Mappelthorphe also made a career out of 'unethical' images. But if either of those guys had a random shot of a dead guy or a random penis in an otherwise unrelated catalog, I'd call it pure shock, with no artistic merits. As it is the merits are still open to discussion, but it's not a hard line like it would be if they just tossed them in there.</p>

Posted

<p>One of the coolest things I've ever heard out of someone's mouth was the Dalai Lama's. He was asked when he reached 60 years old what was he going to do. He answered (to paraphrase) - "Prepare to die". He wasn't intending to commit suicide, but prepare for his death sometime in the future. He was going to get his "house" in order.</p>

<p>One of the many paradoxes of life is those who keep in mind their eventual death are able to live their lives more fully. They don't waste their days on nonsense and things that are really unimportant. I can't tell you how many times I've seen folks spend their entire lives on climbing the corporate ladder only to look back years later with tears in their eyes wishing they spent more time with their children - I think they though there would always be more time.</p>

<p>One of the purposes of art I believe is to bring issues that many find uncomfortable to light, maybe even shove it in their face and remind people that they don't have much time here. Art is also about showing that we are human with the weaknesses and strengths that comes with humanity. I think if we were to be more cognisant of that, there would be much less problems in this World.</p>

<p> </p>

Posted

<p>It certainly depends on what knowledge the photographer has when he is taking the photograph. For the holocaust photographs, most likely the photographer did not know what fate awaited his subjects. Very likely the shots were photojournalism, and possibly taken with a highly ethical goal, recording an atrocious event to make the world aware of what was taking place. What could be more ethical when the only weapon one has in the face of injustice is a camera than recording the event in the hopes that the situation will be remedied? That the situation was or would become much worse - that the individuals being unjustly or cruelly placed under arrest were to be subjected to the ultimate cruelty - is unknown to the photographer. The Rwandan genocide comes to mind as well in this regard, and there are many others as well (Stalin's actions in the 30's, Laos in the 70's, alas, there's so much).<br>

As others have said or implied, all living subjects of our photographs are ultimately doomed. Knowing the fate of the subjects, if it is known, can profoundly affect the viewer and how he views the photograph, at least it does me. Recently the Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article in that regard. See the following link, assess the aesthetics of the Walker Evans photograph, and then read the accompanying article. See if how you look at the photograph a second time does not change profoundly.<br>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574162690573540.html<br>

If the photographer tries to capitalize on the fate of his subjects - assuming he did not know in advance - that is unethical. I consider photographs of people with terminal disease (taken with permission) or on death row, etc, photojournalism and/or documentary and in general I see no ethical problems there. If I take a 'street photograph' of a person standing on the curb at an intersection because for some reason I find it worth taking, and then while moving on to search for the next grab I hear a screech of tires and see that the person I just photographed was struck by a car and killed, then for me to market that photograph as "Moment before death" or some other similarly abhorrent title, that would be extremely unethical.</p>

Posted

<p>Yes, I do believe that that there is a lot of issues here. But, ethical questions are what drives the humanity forward.</p>

<p>Plus, it's documentary. Don't the photos of concentration camps belong to the most moving in history?</p>

<p>I think pictures like this are something that make even the most cynical people slow down and think.</p>

Posted

<p>Thanks for the great contributions, guys, and please keep them coming. I have far too many deadlines to meet to be able to jump in on this one, but I am learning a lot from the rest of you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Posted

<p>The ethics of photographing someone near death, dying, or being killed, would seem to depend almost entirely on the circumstances--most of all, on the photographer's role in the situation, the nature of his relation to the subject, and his intentions.</p>

<p>We can approach a human being <em>in extremis</em> in a respectful, supportive, honest manner, or in an disrespectful, exploitative, abusive manner--whether the nature of our interaction with that person is photographic, emotional, financial, or physical.</p>

<p>An extreme, hypothetical example: in Poland in 1940, as civilians are being herded in groups to the edge of a mass grave to await their deaths before an <em>Einsatzgruppe</em> firing squad, two photographers are recording the event: (1) an SS photographer standing near the grave, making photographs for internal SS reports, or for the private delectation of Nazi leaders; and (2) a member of the Polish resistance lying in a concealed position in a nearby treeline, making photos to be smuggled out of Poland to Allied governments as proof of the Nazi genocide, with renewed pleas for help, targeted bombing, etc. The first "act of photography" is obscenely immoral--just another element of the extermination campaign; the second, by contrast, is highly moral and ethical, although the actual images being produced may be almost identical.</p>

<p>In the context of their creation,<em> all </em>photographs of victims made or commissioned by the Nazis for Nazi purposes are obscene. But after the fact--after the Nazi downfall--the surviving photos exist in another context as well, and assume a higher level of meaning: they have become evidence, they are historical proof of crimes, and they bear witness to lives that were crushed. In photographs left by the Nazis, by the Khmer Rouge, and by others like them, we can see, remember, mourn, and honor individual victims--and by extension, all of the victims. Notwithstanding the obscenity of their creation, the surviving images have carried forward in time the faces of people who did not survive. The photographs have become their only link to future generations.</p>

<p>Thus, as regards the act of <em>making</em> photos, it is the <em>nature of a photographer's intentions</em> that would seem to define his actions as "ethical" or not. And in most cases, it doesn't seem too difficult to sort out, once the circumstances of a given photograph are known.</p>

<p>Maybe more complicated is the ethics of deciding <em>to look at </em>photographs of people about to die, or dying, or being killed. At one revolting extreme are sick, sick people who seek and find pleasure in images of torture and murder (consumers of real or simulated "snuff films" are no different from Hitler and Himmler as they enjoyed the films of their <em>Einsatzgruppen</em> at work).</p>

<p>A long time ago, in an anthology, I read an Anais Nin short story ("The woman in the dunes"--I just googled it) in which a woman recounts having anonymous, furtive sex with a man standing behind her, pressed against her, in the crush of an excited crowd--as she, he, and all those around them were watching a public execution. Her sexual pleasure was directly connected to the death of the condemned man on the scaffold. I remember thinking: whatever its literary merits, this is the most disgusting story I've ever read. I felt tainted. I've never forgotten that story, and my opinion about it hasn't changed.</p>

<p>In the same way, photographs that depict suffering or death--anyone's death--in an exploitative, mocking, dismissive or gratuitous way communicate a view of the human condition that is degrading and coarsening. To make or consume photographs of that type is not, to me, ethical.</p>

<p>But in a more neutral and general sense, every one of us has experienced fear of death, curiosity about death, apprehension, and acceptance to a greater or lesser degree. From childhood onward, we all must deal with feelings and thoughts about the end of life--our own and others'. We live in a visual world, we're mortal, and the fact of death and dying is inescapable.</p>

<p>As long as the <em>motives</em> for making or viewing images of the dying are honest, non-exploitative and respectful of our shared mortality, it seems to me there is no ethical issue.</p>

Posted

<p>IMO "motives" are always dubious, typically distorted in retrospect, often self-defensive. <br>

I think the act itself is the realm of ethics, not the motives. The motives play a role in the act, but the act measures the motives. <br>

Did you do good or evil? That's the ethical question...not "how do you feel about your actions, Mr. Eichmann?"</p>

Posted

<p><em>"IMO 'motives' are always dubious, typically distorted in retrospect, often self-defensive. </em><br /><em> "I think the act itself is the realm of ethics, not the motives."</em></p>

<p>John, "the act itself" is the realm of <strong>law</strong>.</p>

<p>To run down a pedestrian while driving a car may be a "non-culpable accident", or it may be "involuntary manslaughter", or it may be "first-degree murder". There's no difference in <em>"the act itself"</em>--certainly not to the victim, who is dead either way.</p>

<p>The difference lies in the <em>motive</em> of the driver involved--<em> </em>i.e., his<em> intentionality</em>.</p>

<p>The same principle applies with ethics. No one who makes a complex decision, or initiates a complex action, can foresee its ultimate consequences. Things may turn out badly, no matter how well-intended. It happens all the time.</p>

<p>I think your Eichmann analogy is fatuous. He was hanged for his violations of <strong>law</strong>, not his ethics.</p>

Posted

<p>Correction--my third sentence above should read:</p>

<p>"There's no difference in the good or evil consequences of <em>"the act itself"</em>--certainly not to the victim, who is dead either way."</p>

Posted

<p>Yes, there are. But the rules only come from your own sense of decency and respect for the deceased and also their loved ones.<br>

I'd give it a miss, quite frankly...we see enough horror and mayhem on TV and the web thanks. It may be news or important in context, but quite frankly find some other meaty subject.</p>

Posted

<p>Thanks, Ernest. That was a very eloquent exposition of your position. Surely there is a massive difference between the SS taking photos for Nazi consumption, on the one hand, and the Polish resistance taking very, very similar photos for the sake of trying to end the carnage, on the other.</p>

<p>John, notwithstanding the problems with emotivism, if what one means by "motives" is not "feelings" or "emotions," but moral intent, then surely the analysis by Ernest is very helpful. I do agree that feelings alone are not always a reliable guide. I am not quite sure that I can agree with Hume that "Reason is or ought to be the slave of the passions," but I am not sure that Hume has totally missed the mark, either.</p>

<p>In any case, "motives" and "intent" are often used as if they were synonymous. They are not, but the analysis by Ernest is so penetrating and so eloquently voiced that I am very hesitant to say that he has totally missed the mark in his usage, either. The real issue on that question of usage (motive v. rational intent) takes us further afield into ethical theory than I am prepared to go with a busy day ahead of me.</p>

<p>If human motives and feelings are often unreliable, what, after all, may we say of human reason in terms of reliability?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Posted

<blockquote>

<p>The motives play a role in the act, but the act measures the motives.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What, then, is the measure of the act, John?</p>

<p>Sorry, but I have to go and cannot participate further now. This is fascinating, but the day promises to be very long and hard.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Posted
<p><strong>"Sometimes the question is best asked of the dying person."</strong> John, I think this goes to the heart of the matter. We can spend countless hours analyzing the possible merits of taking photographs of dying persons, trying to find some justification for intruding into what seems to be a person's most private moments. Indeed, Holocaust photographs helped to expose the horrors of a genocide, the likes of which the world never had experienced before (and hopefull never will again). Yet, we cannot say how the young woman in the pit at Babi Yar wanted to spend her last moments. I, for one, will not try to second-guess her.</p>
Posted

<p>Lannie, I think you're forgetting about "law." Laws protect vulnurable people, such as those in nursing homes, from various kinds of affronts and intrusions. "Ethics" is a soft way of saying "morals." Morals are typically specified by powerful people in societies, such as wise old women, priests etc. Morals are typically defined by laws, ethics are less compulsory. </p>

<p>I think Ernest (above) has missed something crucial: a photographer can elevate or degrade others with her/his work. Photography has zero significance unless it's shared. If one takes no responsibility for the way one's work influences others, one cannot claim to have any interest in ethics. </p>

Posted

<p><em>"I think Ernest (above) has missed something crucial: a photographer can elevate or degrade others with her/his work...If one takes no responsibility for the way one's work influences others, one cannot claim to have any interest in ethics."</em></p>

<p>Where did <em>that</em> come from?</p>

<p>"Honest, non-exploitative and respectful of our shared mortality" were the words I used.</p>

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...