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

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Ernest, thank you very much for that information, I can understand why the photographer had reservations but I am so glad that it was taken. It would be impossible to quantify the effect this image has had on mankind or even the amount of lives it may have saved. One thing is for sure and that is a clear message comes to me from this. The expressions of the two on the left of the image ( the shooter and onlooker ) have captured the essence of war, that essence being that men become something else and that death seems a pure formality and lives are governed by expedience.<br>

Thanks again Ernest</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>In this case the mis-application of "ethics" to an easily apprehended legal situation (soldiers, even Hitler's, were ruled by law) has diverted the discussion away from utilitarian understanding of ethics by applying the word wrongly.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>John, Hitler's soldiers were ruled by unlawful law--unjust laws. In any case, we are not arguing whether Hitler's legions acted ethically. We are arguing (in the philosophical sense) about what kinds of photographs are ethical. </p>

<p>Even so, ethical principles can provide a basis for evaluating the rightness of a law or social practice. The law cannot, however, provide a basis for ethically evaluating anything. The law simply is, and what it is is about power, not right. The power that a legal system or even a legal act may have in a given cultural milieu does nothing whatsoever to advance any claim of the moral or ethical legitimacy of the law. Even Hitler managed to finally get himself elected to office. So what? Did he suddenly thereby gain moral/ethical legitimacy? Of course not.</p>

<p>Power cannot legitimize itself. If it could, then Thrasymachus would have been right: might would indeed make right; but might does not make right. Hitler's momentary power advantage, even when it was more or less legal and accepted by many Germans, did not serve to give moral legitimacy to his cause. Majorities or other expressions of power do not confer any claim of right. That is one reason that we have the very idea of a Bill of Rights. Majority rule does not trump a single claim of right. The individual, for example, has the rights he or she has regardless of whether or not the majority wishes to run roughshod over those rights.</p>

<p>Now back to the ethics of photography. Zounds, John. What are you arguing, anyway?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jason]

<p>When my Mum was passing, I looked at the scene, a large sepia photo of Her as a child, above the bed.My Mother looked straight at me. "No photos!" I respected Her wishes. The scene forever in my memory..I also hate doing snaps of "dead people" in Funeral homes. Different ways of mourning.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Lannie's right that ethics, like most big vague ideas, can be understood differently by different people and in different situations.</p>

<p>However, ethics and law are two very different ideas.</p>

<p>When atrocities by soldiers are brought up, the issue tends to become legal rather than ethical. A soldier that violates his regulations is subject to punishment by his own officers, or should he be on the wrong side, according to the laws of the winning side. I doubt any Nazis were hung for ethical reasons, they were hung for violations of laws.</p>

<p>When a society is governed by subtle and constant rules, ethics may become a vanished concern by comparison to obedience to experts, priests, mullahs, rabbis.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Thanks, John, for the clarification.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Lannie, I think that when someone (was it you?) argues that "intentions" are relevant to ethics he abandons the idea that the photographs themselves (per your most recent post) are themselves ethical or unethical. Which concerns you ethically: the photograph or the photographing?</p>

<p>Additionally, "unjust" is a new idea...you've tossed it casually into the discussion as if you/we knew what it meant. I think it's better to stay focused on the original topic.</p>

<p>Hitler's soldiers were (probably) bound mostly by proper military laws, just as were the US soldiers at MyLai (US military laws became more demanding of individual soldiers afterward). That both armies engaged in atrocities, just as have all armies since forever, is yet another kind of discussion... nobody's attempted to link "atrocity" to "ethics" any more than they have with "justice." One man's atrocity (Agent Orange in Vietnam, Katyn Forrest in Poland) is another man's law-abiding service.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>John, I do not believe that photographs are inherently ethical or unethical. Persons or their actions are. The question behind this thread was not the photos themselves, but the motives, intentions, and even purposes involved on the part of those making and disseminating the photos.</p>

<p>As for invoking the idea of what is "just" or "unjust," anytime anyone starts mixing legal and ethical considerations in the same conversation, then issues of "just" or "unjust" laws naturally spring to my mind. You are right that that is a major digression, but, since I thought that you were addressing the issue of whether soldiers were acting ethically or not through appeals to the law, I thought that the digression might be warranted. I'm sorry for not reading you correctly.</p>

<p>In any case, I did not "casually" toss the issue of "just laws" into the conversation. It is one of the most cogent topics in political theory: the issue of what to do when moral obligation and legal obligation come into conflict.</p>

<p>That issue seemed relevant to me in the present context, from discussions of the Nazi v. resistance photographers to discussions of how morally culpable soldiers were who were engaged in actions such as those being shown in the photos of the Holocaust.</p>

<p>Not all discussions of ethics involve the law, of course, but, since you raised the issue of law, I thought that in some sense you were inviting us into that controversial topic of political philosophy: just versus unjust laws.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ifti]

<p>Ethical rules do not change. It is the wish of the person you photograph that determines if you can take a picture and then you can display it. As physician I don't think pictures of dead or sick one near death have any charm for me. It may be important in medical jurisprudence or as a documentation in medical records. Regards. ifti. </p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Lannie mentioned the Golden Rule as an example of a universal principle. Of course we all know the text, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This universal principle for good behavior actually defines the basis for reciprocity in human relations. Parse it like this: "Do unto <strong>[</strong>others<strong>]</strong> as you would have them do unto you." The reason for highlighting others is that other relationship terms can be inserted in its place to allow us to define reciprocity between specific groups of people. That is, the general meaning for the expression taught as it was taught to me was, "Do unto <strong>[all others]</strong> as you would have them do unto you." </p>

<p>But there is no reason to think that the principle cannot be rewritten for more specific circumstances, "Do unto <strong>[family members]</strong> as ...", and "Do unto <strong>[friends]</strong>, <strong>[enemies]</strong>, <strong>[customers]</strong>, <strong>[competitors]</strong> & etc., & etc.." Each one of these expressions can yield a valid basis for behavior for an individual that could be applied in ways that are not necessarily the same for everyone. The foundation for this lies in the fact that people really do separate others into groups, and they gauge their behavior accordingly. The central factor in all this being the things a person is willing suffer himself in order to do the same thing to another. </p>

<p>For example one might say, "Lie, cheat and steal from outsiders as much as you are willing to allow them to lie, cheat and steal from you." Or another different variation, "Love one another as yourself."</p>

<p>Ethical behavior gets so thorny because behavior itself is specific, not general. Humans easily distinguish near acquaintances from distant ones, we recognize power and 'gamesmanship', affection and suspicion, public and private, and we may choose to behave in ways we feel are appropriate for each circumstance when it occurs. This sort of distinction sets up early experiences many people have with situational ethics. You may be told to never treat Daddy's boss in exactly the same way as you treat your sister, for example.</p>

<p>This takes us back to the beginning. The photographer's ethics are all about the commitments he has made and what he binds himself to do for the life of the project. Many relationships can exist at the same time. To assess how well he carries out his ethical obligations, one must be able to find out which rules apply. His behavior is ethical with respect to what, exactly?</p>

[jtk]

<p>I think Albert's comments make a lot of sense.</p>

<p>Soldiers are creatures of law, not of individuality. That's why military law is detailed and specific, even going so far (thanks evidently to My Ly) as to tell soldiers that they must resist orders they believe to be illegal. Military law doesn't say, nor do commanders, "Do what you think best and don't do what you disagree with." That's probably the main distinction between terrorists and soldiers...it's certainly not a matter of who kills the most innocents (think Hiroshima Vs 9/11 for example).</p>

<p>Ethics have to do more with sub-groups than with larger societies because the larger are inevitably more diverse, which dilutes special values (eg ethical ones). For example, in some societies it's unethical for men to compete for other men's goods, and in others it's encouraged: the "winner" is understood to be better for the species. "Golden rule" is a nice idea, but how does it apply when someone decides his neighbor is no longer worthy, or even human, because he's cursed by the Deity DeJour?</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Dr. Ahmad reconfirms that the only avenue that is sure, is that of the wish of the dying person. The ethics involved is that of seeking to obtain the acceptance (or not) of the person being photographed.</p>

<p>Discussion about ethics in military, government, medecine, engineering design and construction, advertising, or any other domain of activity is either secondary or unimportant in regard to the question of this OT. The seeking of the wishes of the dying is a cross-cultural ethical act and not related as such to the values of a specific community. However, what may be related to the latter may well condition the dying person's reponse to the photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>While Arthur is right, IMO (my ethical perspective) to seek approval of the dying if one wants to photograph them, <strong>one challenge </strong>(another spin on the ethics) is that the dying are frequently not even vaguely aware of their own state or of visiting interlopers....and even if they are fairly aware, they may prefer the state (possibly memory review) through which they're passing to the issues a photographer would raise.</p>

<p>The dying are often hard at work at their ultimate life project.</p>

<p>To discuss the tasks and process and awareness of the dying it's crucial to read the definitive text (easy reading, universally read by hospice workers, nurses et al):</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Death-Dying-Scribner-Classics/dp/0684842238</p>

<p>Alternatively you can pick up condensed versions of those ideas (Kubler-Ross's pioneering ideas) in pamphlet forms at most nursing homes, hospice centers, and hospitals.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I do have the sense that some of us are inexperienced with dying people. Most likely those of us who lost friends and acquaintances in the early phases of the AIDS crisis have that sort of experience. </p>

<p>I linked this earlier: an interview with a relatively young, prominent historian, in bed with tubes, fed coffee through a hole in his neck, who was highly alert and committed to his role as a "public intellectual" and writer at the highest possible level nearly to the moment of his death, a moment he knew would come shortly:</p>

<p>http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11185</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>I have a wonderful picture of my 95-year-old grandmother that recently had the fourth or fifth ischemia and surely doesn't have her whole life ahead. It is on film and probably the most beautiful picture I have ever taken (it hangs in my bedroom). I published it shortly but it didn't last one hour on the internet. I often thought about uploading it on PN but I was never able to.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Antonio, was she aware of you, did you converse? Was she in her own isolated state? Was she joyous? Suffering? Medicated? Those questions could be related to ethics...</p>

<p>Why didn't her beautiful image "last one hour on the internet?" </p>

<p>"never able to".... I made some images of my mother in a late stage that I would never post... because I want to think of her about five years earlier, in her late Seventies, when she seemed like a flower to me.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>John</strong><br>

She was not aware of me while I was photographing her. She recognizes people very briefly and then falls back into a limb. I completely share your thoughts about your mother. I think it is very hard to think "photographically" in cases like this.</p>

[jtk]

<p>How did you feel about photographing her at the time? Did you feel you were recording something valuable for the future, engaged in something intimate, stepping over personal limits? My last photos of my mother were made to let some family members know what was becoming of her...not necessarily a kind act on my part. Not fully ethical, but useful. Utility and ethics are sometimes at odds, of course.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>John</strong><br>

I was being both a photographer and her grandson. I wanted to have my photo of her for the future and for her daughters (my mom and her sisters) and I also wanted to step over personal limits, photographically speaking. I transformed her into my (unconscious) model. It turned out to be a beautiful photo because I managed to get her modest and peaceful personality in it, despite her total mental confusion. I recognize her in that photo and that doesn't happen in all photos. Here I recall Roland Barthes. I would love for you to see it but I am not ready to show it around yet, at least as long as she is alive.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Antonio, thanks for those responses. They're familiar. When I photographed my mother in decline I also experienced the "personal limits" you mentioned (probably ethical limits). </p>

<p>But my impression was that she, a fine photographer in her youth and attentive to it for nearly 70 years, appreciated the photographic significance of the situation...and was an active participant.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>John, that's great. My aunt, that is taking care of my grandmother at the present time, is not a photographer at all and doesn't understand my point of view. She didn't like the fact that I wanted to take pictures and I had to go visit my grandma when she was not around. I wonder if my aunt will appreciate this photo when grandma will pass away.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Antonio, it sounds to me like your photograph, and maybe mine, are a lot like photojournalism. The photojournalists images are (usually I think) accompanied by written information, often short essays. If I choose not to destroy my last, most distressing images of my mother I think I should write a note to go along with them...specifically authorizing whoever finds them to destroy them if they want. </p>

<p>That raises another ethical issue: what to do with photographs, negatives, letters etc that we inherit but do not necessarily understand, that may picture people we can't identify. I've segregated them according to beauty and other factors, destroying perhaps a third...should probably destroy many more. Those I've identified as most important (and best visually) I've already scanned, printed, and distributed as sets to primary family.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>Those kind of photographs you're talking about definitely need some written information, maybe in the back. This way, they might become interesting even for people that cannot identify the portrayed subjects.<br>

I have always trouble destroying photographs, it makes me feel weird, almost like I am destroying a part of existence. Photography testifies the existence of its subjects.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Photography as testimony is an interesting metaphor.</p>

<p>How about posting that as a thread ? It's worth some thought.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>John<br>

I will post it tomorrow, it's 3 am here. It is an interesting subject to discuss.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Ifti ( http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2138430) ... I think some of us (me, for example) may have missed the significance of your post. I visited your Portfolio and it struck me that your interest is in the beautiful, simple, and tender....the kinds of things some of us (me, for example) may in our current photography casually ignore. I was also interested in your comment about discipline...an enviable trait.</p>

<p>I'd be very interested in more of your thoughts. Do they reflect your profession, your culture or religion, something that seems to you to be universal? </p>

<p>Your approach to photography may almost be the polar opposite of mine, at least on the surface. That suggest to me that there's a lot of potential for intellectual light, or at least sparks :-)</p>