Are There Ethical Issues with Making and Displaying Photos of Those About to Die?

[ernest-b]

<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>

[shadforth_stephen]

<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>

[Landrum Kelly]

<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>

[Landrum Kelly]

<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>

[michaellinder]

<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>

[ridinhome]

<p>Teddy here didn't seem to mind, though he was a little put out when I started discussing the philosophy of photography with him.</p><div></div>

[ridinhome]

<p>I realize my post may be offensive to some. If it is, my apologies and the mods can feel free to delete it.</p>

[phule]

<p>This question, and the photograph he took, haunted photographer Kevin Carter to such an extend that he took his own life.<br>

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5241442</p>

[jtk]

<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>

[ernest-b]

<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>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Someone well meaning may be taking exploitive pictures of homeless or dead people. The pictures may be exploitive, regardless of the person's intentions. There are many exploitive photos of homeless people on PN. I doubt many people take them out of malevolence. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, it would be good if they stopped taking these pictures and didn't rely on their good intentions as the only indicator but rather the results of their actions, since the photographs often speak louder in the world than their intentions.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>So in your opinion, Fred, this photo, being "unethical", should not have been made ?</p>

<p>http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/migrantmother.htm</p>

<p>Or are you saying that only you (or only you and John Kelly, and perhaps a few others) should attempt to make such photographs--since only you have the rare powers of discrimination that are required to avoid exploitative consequences? </p>

<p>Are you advocating a licensing program for photographers, with learners' permits, trial portfolios, etc., culminating in a final "unrestricted" ethics stamp? (Since as you say, mere good intentions are an unreliable indicator.)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ernest, I think common sense can be used.</p>

<p>I've commented on a few photos that I have found exploitive, not with an idea toward intimidation or censorship, but in hopes of opening up a dialogue. On a couple of occasions, other photographers have then chimed in and agreed with me. A few times, the photographer was moved by the discussion and discovered something not previously considered. That's how genuine and honest communication (sometimes called critique, which can be about more than "nice crop, nice tones") can work, at least at its best. I've been on the receiving ends of such critiques and forced me to confront some of my own demons as well, a welcome part of my own photographic process.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>The "homeless" are mostly used as a generic label, as much by the ones against photographing them as by the ones labeling them as such through photographs. Like if the homeless don't have a will of their own or like some haven't choosen for their lifestyle, and need to be protected at all ( of which photography should be the least of concerns ).</p><div></div>

[jtk]

<p>Ernest, you've gone off the deep end by pretending Fred or I have tried to tell you what to do. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, I don't think anybody's ever opposed photographing homeless people, certainly not Fred or I. In his post above, Fred used the term "exploitative." I've commented on my preference (fwiw...something to do with my "ethics") for engaging with people I'm photographing. Your post, above, seems to propose that since some homeless don't object to being photographed, it's OK. I don't disagree...but of course if you believe the person hasn't objected, doesn't that mean you've engaged with them (eg spoken or made it clear that you were photographing)? <br>

Personally, I don't like photographing anybody unaware, homeless or not. But I've done it occasionally. I think of that as an ethical issue...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, some people who have chosen a lifestyle can still be exploited by others. And I don't necessarily think people "need" to be "protected." I <em>seek</em> to avoid <em>exploitation</em>.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"Ernest, I think common sense can be used."</em></p>

<p>Fred, that is <em><strong>exactly</strong></em> my point.</p>

<p>In the absence of legal prohibitions, a licensing program, or an explicit code of conduct ("You may do this/You may not do that"), the <em>ethical</em> propriety of making a photograph--or not--depends on (1) the photographer's understanding of the subject and the situation, and (2) the nature of his intentions.</p>

<p>Like any other person, a photographer may have good intentions coupled with a poor or incomplete understanding of a situation or subject (in cross-cultural encounters this happens all the time); and as a result he may commit a serious<em> faux pas</em>. However, an honestly-made mistake based on incomplete understanding is <strong>not</strong> <em>"unethical"</em>; it's just an honestly made mistake.</p>

<p>Those on the receiving end of your ethical tutelage, as you describe, Fred, no doubt have emerged with a higher appreciation of the need for sensitivity in making and posting such images. Presumably, the next time they confront such a subject, their new, higher understanding will factor into the decision process. If they then think: "This will definitely be an exploitative image if I make it, and based on what I've learned I shouldn't make it...but I'm going to, anyway"--then what they're about to do no longer qualifies as "good intentions".</p>

<p>At that point (only at that point) making the photograph becomes "unethical".</p>

<p> </p>

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"Ernest, you've gone off the deep end by pretending Fred or I have tried to tell you what to do."</em></p>

<p>John, you can rest easy. </p>

<p>Please be 100% assured that I have no concerns whatever about you or Fred trying to "tell me what to do." </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, some people who have chosen a lifestyle can still be exploited by others. And I don't necessarily think people "need" to be "protected." I <em>seek</em> to avoid <em>exploitation</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but exploitation in photography may come in both the making ( pointing at ) as well as the viewing of photographs, and not necessarily together. And as we seek to avoid it ( which I certainly don't disagree with ), then we might as well stop looking too.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I agree, Phylo, there are a lot of photos to which I won't give a second glance when I come across them. Many of them are in the nudes section, the most exploitive section on PN, IMO. (For me, ethics comes with being able to make some value judgments, all legality aside. I say that not in response to anything you've said, but just to make it clear.)</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ernest, you keep returning to the idea that a photograph can itself be unethical. Simultaneously you hold that it's a matter of one's intentions. I think there's a third path, which has to do with the common use of the term "ethics." Ethics are somewhere in between morality/law and personal preferences. They are typically both culturally shared and personal. That doesn't relate to "intentions," it relates to actions. </p>

<p>There are also professional ethics...in journalism today that has to do with such things a Photoshop, and with payment to subjects being interviewed. Associated Press and Reuters spell out some of those ethical issues, and if one violates them one may lose an important professional channel for one's work. Those bad results would happen based upon the work one did, not upon one's intentions. One doesn't unintentionally reconstruct images or unintentionally pay people one is interviewing.</p>

 

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"Ernest, you keep returning to the idea that a photograph can itself be unethical."</em></p>

<p>What are you talking about, John? Where?</p>

<p>This?</p>

<p><em>"So in your opinion, Fred, this photo, being 'unethical', should not have been made?" (Nov. 12, 04:44 p.m.)</em></p>

<p>If indeed that is what you are referring to<em>,</em> please re-read the post and note the ironic quotation marks I placed around "unethical".</p>

<p>In context, I think the meaning of my question to Fred (for most readers, at least) is obvious.</p>

<p> </p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Ethics is all about the rules of fair play. Unlike morality which is based on behavior being consistent with immutable laws, ethical behavior is judged by how well one follows the rules of conduct generally accepted to apply to the situation. Congress has established and enforces an ethical code of conduct. Thus is is easy to accuse a politician taking bribes of unethical conduct and difficult to decide if photographing dying AIDS patients should be condemned out of hand. </p>

<p>The AIDS matter has a multi-dimensional aspect. From an ethics perspective the appropriate questions to ask would be things like who has the power to stop me? And what are they willing to do about it? In some cases this sort of thing turns out to have the effect of being a solution in search of a problem. </p>

<p>There are ethical issues one can find in situations concerning things like whether the responsibility for the thing applies equally to everyone who might have a direct role to play in them. Is the footsoldier as guilty of genocide as the general who gives him carte blanch to murder? Who has the ultimate ethical authority in the situation, the genocidal general or the offended foreign power which has an interest in restoring peace? </p>

<p>The original question has a binary - on again - off again - flavor to it, but ethical matters are always judged from the perspective of a set of rules for conduct in a particular situation. Sometimes more than one system of rules might apply depending on the point of view of the person making the assessment. These judgments can be colored by a person believing that what is true for one member of a group is equally true for all member of the same group. It can also be colored by the idea that responsibility for unethical conduct can be inherited and passed down in time. Many Armenians in the US say Turkey is just a guilty of the Armenian Genocide now as when it took place some 95 years ago for example. </p>

<p>As if that isn't enough, the rules of fair play, or in the case of an object like a photograph, the rules of fair value, do change over time. It isn't reasonable to try to find a connection between a soldier's war photograph and what one might make of it some 65-80 years after it was made. Same object - different context - leads to a different sense of its usefulness and value. It serves no purpose to say that the soldier ought not to have made the picture in the first place because that demonstrated unethical behavior, and then to turn around to say that the same photograph provides valuable documentation of what took place at the time. </p>

<p>The photographer's motivation and intention was mentioned earlier, but I think that the context that would make it desirable to photograph the dead and dying, and the sensibilities of the people who would see the result are more important. That is, describe the game the photographer is playing at and list the rules of fair play for him to follow.</p>

<p>I see these things as dark, complex issues. This isn't baseball. Where there is little clear idea of the consequences of what is taking place, how can one decide whether or not some rules are being followed? In whose opinion? Is your estimation of the ethical result of making the photograph the same now as it was last year? If not, do you think the ends justify the means? (Should you forgive the photographer his ethical breach because you like what became of it?)</p>

<p>It just occurred to me that civil and social matters are quite different from criminal ones. Is it unethical for a photographer to take a picture of the victim of his own act of murder? This demonstrates how multiple sets of rules can apply to the same act. I'll admit that this is confusing. In fact, the whole thing is confusing because the heart of ethics is is all about responsibility and consequences, neither of which make much sense without a proper context to put them in.</p>

<p>In short the most reasonable response to the original question I can come up with is - It all depends...</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>"Ethics" and "moral philosophy" are both common titles for the same subfield of philosophy. Some academic departments prefer to offer courses in "the theory of value." The words "ethics" and "morality" vary somewhat in everyday usage, and reasonable and educated persons do indeed use them in various ways. <em><br /></em></p>

<p><em>Ethics</em> is also the title of a philosophy journal dealing with questions of right and wrong, good and evil, etc.</p>

<p>I personally think of "ethics" as an inquiry into what <em>I</em> should do. Hume and many other philosophers have made reference to "morals" or "the principles of morals" in such a way as to suggest that "ethics" for them is not merely a "code of ethics" (which it can also be) but also an academic sub-discipline in philosophy which is virtually synonymous with "moral philosophy."</p>

<p>My own research and teaching field of political philosophy ("political theory" in political science departments) is also often interpreted as a subfield of ethics <em>qua</em> moral philosophy. My text this semester in a political theory course is <em>Classics of Moral and Political Theory</em>, but I also teach ethics in philosophy departments from time to time.</p>

<p>It is always interesting to see the various related usages of these terms.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>