Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes

6 (50%)

no

6 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: November 26, 2005, 04:21:30 pm

[AugustWest]

I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.

The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.

However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.

On it's face, maybe - but if the old man is using skills he honed torturing or maiming people for the Fatherland to help his kid make money now, sorry, but I think the son does become in a way complicit to the Holocaust. I don't feel it's ever appropriate to benefit or profit from a crime - let alone benefiting or profiting from genocide.

Still, though, I'm not sure the SS Question is answered in this example - but in general, I do think it's wrong.

I think it requires us to assume a lot of facts not in evidence to come to any kind of conclusion on the SS question.  For instance, what did the father actually do in the SS?  Exactly how is he involved in "processing" the bodies?  Further even if he did participate in atrocities during the 30s and 40s, isn't it possible that he's changed since then?  Sinners can be redeemed, right?  There's that whole Saul/Paul/Road to Damascus thing.

And I think the SS question is at best tangential to the main issue re: the morality of an exhibit of this nature.

Question for AD and Side Show:  Is there a way an exhibition like this could be done that you would be satisfied with?  Say, if all the following conditions were met:

-- Only the bodies of people who had given their express written permission were used;

--  The bodies were displayed in an neutral, utterly non-provacative manner;

--  All proceed were donated to a suitable charity;

--  Educational/informative/instructional material accompanied each display.

Would that make a difference or are you inherently opposed to this practice?

One other factual question that you maybe able to answer AD.  Where do medical schools get their cadavers?  Have all of them been obtained from someone who has given written permission or do they get some from institutions?

[AugustWest]

Wait, I thought of one more question.

Would it be ok to provocatively display (for obscene profit) the body of someone who had tortured people for the SS during WWII, against their wishes and the wishes of their family?  What if he had a barbed c*ck?

Or ate babies?

[AugustWest]

It's the horror factor people are paying for. I think that it appeals to the most base part of the psyche,

Maybe some.  So?  Some people buy National Geographic to look at the native girls titties, but that doesn't invalidate the magazine.

I'd like to see this exhibit, but I don't think it would inspire horror in me.  I don't think it's even gross.  It's a scientific exhibition.  I think it would be fascinating to see the inside of a body and I don't see anything crass about that.

I go to botanical gardens to see and study plants.  I go to natural history museums and zoos to study other animals.  If this is done in a dignified manner (which granted is up for debate...) I don't see a lot of difference.

[AlohaDawg]

I may be underinformed here, as my information is what is found in this thread, but I wanted to weigh in on the SS thing.

The actions of the Nazis are not forgiveable. Someone who was a member of the SS almost certainly participated of his own will in unforgiveable actions.

However, this has nothing to do with the exhibit in question. As I gather from this thread, it seems that the exhibit is the project of this man's son. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son. You mentioned that the father is "involved in processing the bodies", but it sounds like the creation and vision of the exhibit are not his. A man does not choose his father, nor his father's sins. I don't feel I am in a position of sufficient knowledge to judge this exhibit's moral status, but the father's SS connection would seem to have nothing to do with it.

On it's face, maybe - but if the old man is using skills he honed torturing or maiming people for the Fatherland to help his kid make money now, sorry, but I think the son does become in a way complicit to the Holocaust. I don't feel it's ever appropriate to benefit or profit from a crime - let alone benefiting or profiting from genocide.

Still, though, I'm not sure the SS Question is answered in this example - but in general, I do think it's wrong.

I think it requires us to assume a lot of facts not in evidence to come to any kind of conclusion on the SS question.  For instance, what did the father actually do in the SS?  Exactly how is he involved in "processing" the bodies?  Further even if he did participate in atrocities during the 30s and 40s, isn't it possible that he's changed since then?  Sinners can be redeemed, right?  There's that whole Saul/Paul/Road to Damascus thing.

And I think the SS question is at best tangential to the main issue re: the morality of an exhibit of this nature.

Question for AD and Side Show:  Is there a way an exhibition like this could be done that you would be satisfied with?  Say, if all the following conditions were met:

-- Only the bodies of people who had given their express written permission were used;

--  The bodies were displayed in an neutral, utterly non-provacative manner;

--  All proceed were donated to a suitable charity;

--  Educational/informative/instructional material accompanied each display.

Would that make a difference or are you inherently opposed to this practice?

One other factual question that you maybe able to answer AD.  Where do medical schools get their cadavers?  Have all of them been obtained from someone who has given written permission or do they get some from institutions?

Because I think that this treatment of human beings is inherently inappropriate, there is no way for me to define terms that make it appropriate. It's like describing the color red in enough ways to make me see blue.

Saul/Paul: Yes, Paul had a mighty conversion on the Damascus Road. That demonstrates to me the power of God to love the sinner while simultaneously hating the sin.

If the gentleman we are discussing was an SS officer; committeed these same kinds of acts as war crimes, and is now continuing that behavior with his son for fun and profit, then redemption isn't in play because he is still committing the sin.

[CortJstr]

It's personal. And, I'm afraid, inarguable since it's a matter of faith. It's rooted fairly deeply in my belief in a conscious and loving Creator and the accompanying belief that our existence, our bodies and our lives are a gift from that Creator. Jokes I can handle but when the actual physical form is held up for what is an elaborate effort at attention-gettng, shock value, and profit, I think it runs very strongly counter to my admittedly personal views as a Christian. I believe we are meant to love and respect each other, even after death. Universally.

But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.

Although personally I think that the moral thing is to turn a body back into fertilizer as rapidly as possible after death. Kind of like in Dune.

[AlohaDawg]

It's the horror factor people are paying for. I think that it appeals to the most base part of the psyche.

Maybe some.  So?  Some people buy National Geographic to look at the native girls titties, but that doesn't invalidate the magazine.

That goes to the other side of the equation which I alluded to in an earlier post. The motive of the audience is suspect as well. Do we prosecute only people who create child pornography or the consumers as well? Sometimes desiring certain content is as big a problem as creating it.

I'd like to see this exhibit, but I don't think it would inspire horror in me.  I don't think it's even gross.  It's a scientific exhibition.  I think it would be fascinating to see the inside of a body and I don't see anything crass about that.

That can be done in so many lifelike ways that it unnecessary to utilize real, formerly living humans for it. At least, for the general public who has no real need to see and feel real human flesh for the good of helping and healing the living.

I go to botanical gardens to see and study plants.  I go to natural history museums and zoos to study other animals.  If this is done in a dignified manner (which granted is up for debate...) I don't see a lot of difference.

You would dissassemble a child to see how she works? How about your child? Your mother? How about someone else does it against your wishes? Or without your knowledge?

All of these exhibits that we have convenielty objectified into works of art or three dimensional diagrams are children, maybe parents, brothers, sisters. We are all related to each and everyone of them in some distant way. And we should understand that they deserve better than to be skinneed, peeled, posed, and gawked at.

I realize that I'm a minority voice here - and that my somewhat conservative views may not reflect the majority in all places. But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life - whether you take Side Show Mel's point of view or my point of view it comes down to whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity on the altar of humanism.

[AugustWest]

You would dissassemble a child to see how she works? How about your child? Your mother? How about someone else does it against your wishes? Or without your knowledge?

If performing an autopsy on my child could reasonably be expected to reduce suffering in someone else's, yes I might.  I don't think I ever advocated for vivisection here.  And I think we've all agreed that this should only happen if someone is willing.

Because I think that this treatment of human beings is inherently inappropriate, there is no way for me to define terms that make it appropriate. It's like describing the color red in enough ways to make me see blue.

That's fine, that's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint.  I was legitimately asking, not being rhetorical.

All of these exhibits that we have convenielty objectified into works of art or three dimensional diagrams are children, maybe parents, brothers, sisters. We are all related to each and everyone of them in some distant way. And we should understand that they deserve better than to be skinneed, peeled, posed, and gawked at.

But if those individuals are OK with it, where's the problem?  If it's truly voluntary, how is participating different from acting or modeling?  Isn't that an person objectifing their body into a work of art?  This could be a useful purpose that my carcass could serve after I'm done with it.  How is burying it in the ground or burning it "better"?

But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life

Come now.  I'm but a amateur student of history, but I can think of dozens of examples of how human life and human rights were held in far less esteem in the past.  For instance, slavery (while still vestigally around) is no longer the universal institution it once was.  Life expectancy is considerably longer.  Racism is on the decline -- when was the last time you heard of a lynching?  I think we are more respectful and protective of human life and human rights today than at any time in history.  Are things perfect or even good now?  Of course not.  But historically things were far worse.

[pmcd9]

AD and August are our spiritual leaders.  This debate is awesome.

~Paul

[V-Adore]

See, here's the thing: if you truly consider this to be intrinsically abhorrent as an element of your personal morality, that's your business, and I'm not going to argue with you. You certainly don't have to attend it or even approve of it. But, to put it bluntly, a lot of these arguments are ignoring several crucial things.

First of all, in a nonconsensual situation, this is obviously unethical. (It's in bold because it's important.) The merits of this exhibit are entirely conditional on consent of the deceased or those able to consent for the deceased. Given consent, I can't see this as abuse of a body -- at least, no more so than burial or cremation or launching into space in a giant fist-rocket is. (To answer AD's question: no, of course I would not want a relative vivisected. But this isn't vivisection; the one unquestionable thing about this is that all the bodies are, in fact, dead before the process begins. If a relative of mine died and willed his/her body to a project like this, I would consider it less ethical to reject my loved one's final wishes by rejecting it.)

On the "provocativeness" of the poses: I can't speak for this, since I haven't seen the exhibit. It's entirely possible this is all presented tastelessly. However, I don't believe that tastelessness always equals unethicality.

As for the SS thing... look, I agree with Ben here. I'm not attempting to underestimate what the Nazis did or the possibility that something untoward may be happening here, but "the father of the artist, who may or may not have committed unspecified war crimes over 60 years ago, is assisting in the exhibit assembly in some sort of unspecified way (but is not, in fact, the artist)" is just not enough to convince me that this is by definition unethical. Would it be ethical if the father was not participating at all? If the father participated but was not suspected of war crimes? What?

(Some of this, I will confess, depends heavily on whether you believe in the Banality of Evil or Hitler's Willing Executioners interpretation of the events of WWII. I sort of have to go with the Arendt, myself; while there were certainly evil people in the Nazi ranks, I can't buy that most of the population of Germany was just psychopathically genocidal by nature.)

[misterqueue]

But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life - whether you take Side Show Mel's point of view or my point of view it comes down to whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity on the altar of humanism.

I know AW already rebutted this a little but I had to take issue with this argument.  First of all AD; much love and respect for your view and I see where you're coming from but the slippery slope argument is a strawman and even worse for dragging humanism into it.

Did the Aztecs respect life so much as you meant?

What about the US in WWII and their relationship to the Japanese?

What about the Mongols raiders who would gangrape a woman and cut her body for more holes when they ran out?

And the list goes on and on.. I don't even think our current "Western" society is in decline when you really look at it in a mediocre context; it only depends on what exactly your hot button issues are whether or not you subscribe to that idea.

Anyway I concede that the rest of your argument is well thought out and very personal, but I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.

With Much Respect nonetheless,
 
-Me

[miles]

Because I think that this treatment of human beings is inherently inappropriate, there is no way for me to define terms that make it appropriate. It's like describing the color red in enough ways to make me see blue.

First, I'm having a hard time calling the bodies of the deceased human beings or individuals (as I thought I read in another post).  Personally, I don't care how my body is disposed of.  I'll leave it to the love ones impacted most by the decision (now, my parents, later a spouse or SO, maybe my sisters or close friends), and if I'm all alone, I'll donate it to science, I guess.  I don't really think that my identity is distinct from my body.  I guess it's just that I think that much of who I am is gone when I die, and the body decays anyway, so I don't really care now what will be done with it.  But I do agree that the religious/moral sentiments of others should be respected in relation to this matter.  Still, dead bodies aren't human beings, in my opinion.

However, where is the line drawn?  If ancient bones are dug up, how far should we go to respect the sentiments of the deceased?  If there is intrinsic worth, or (obviously) consent can't be obtained, or if it's (and side_show alluded to this) very difficult to settle the matter among presumed distant descendants, then can we ever really argue that such bones should be used for anything at all, even if it has tremendous educational value?

But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.

I don't know what the Dawg's views are on this issue, but I think a lot of Christians believe this way, roughly.  But don't most Christians believe in a physical resurrection (and so the body would certainly be more than merely a vessel)?  Anyway, it certainly isn't the whole idea behind Christianity, and some believe that when you die, you rest until the resurrection.  Your spirit or soul doesn't go somewhere and wait for it to happen.  You just stay in the ground (or wherever you end up after death) until you are resurrected.  I think it's actually kind of a contentious point in Christianity.

But anyway, it doesn't really matter for Dawg, because he just (initially, I think) argued that the body is a gift from God, and so should be respected, even after death, and even if it no longer holds the soul.  Some people don't believe that the fetus holds the soul, but stil oppose abortion on similar grounds.

[miles]

Did the Aztecs respect life so much as you meant?

[snip]

...I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.

My friend hates the song "Cortez the Killer" for this reason.  These lyrics in particular bother him:

They offered life in sacrifice
So that others could go on.

Hate was just a legend
And war was never known

I guess I can see his point, but it's such a cool fuck*ng song.  I don't really hold Neil to any kind of standards of historical accuracy, and I don't think he's really trying to give a history lesson anyway.  I read once something like this:  Neil was just metaphorically calling Cortez a killer, because he sought paradise on earth and didn't find it, thereby killing that dream.  That's probably bullshit, but interesting anyway.  And to be honest with you, I am so ignorant of this time in history that I feel I really shouldn't pass judgment anyway.  Plus, the song is so. fuck*ng. cool.

[Bozack]

When I die, I want to be stuffed and posed, in a tuxedo, making the whole angry bear on a rampage face while lunging forward. I then want to be placed in a dusty attic in a house which will then be sold to unsuspecting buyers. Barring that, I want a Viking funeral. I will only donate my body to science if they would promise that a portion of my body will be used in a practical joke. I was raised by my grandfather to respect the fact that a joke or a good anecdote is the best way to live beyond yourself (barring, you know, teaching or something productive like that), and something like that... I would live FOREVER. My great-great-great-grandkids would be talking about it, if, of course, we still have mouths then. I would be cool with being used in a sculpture, but only if the artist portrayed me doing something absurd or incredibly crude. If my body could be positioned in the "Showbiz Position", with the crotch-grabbing and the raised arm, I would smile down from Heaven.
I second V-Adore's comments, and would actually take it further- if real, thoughtful consent was given, it is ethical. Of course, defining "real, thoughtful consent" is difficult, but I would venture to say that it doesn't sound like this guy is getting it. If he sat down with someone and told them exactly what he wanted to do with their corpse in the untimely event of their death, and they signed off on it, maybe gave some artistic insight, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as their wishes were being respected. I would want it to be a joint venture between the artist and the medium. But, again, doesn't sound like that's how it's going down. And, as such, I...hmmm. Let's just say that I wouldn't see it, and if I were involved with a museum that was considering displaying the exhibit, I would try very hard to push them away from it. If he is displaying John Does and mental patients, without their skin and unbeknownst to any relatives they may have...that's just morally reprehensible on so many, many levels.
Like so many things, it's just a matter of consent, and a matter of defining consent.

Regarding the relative humanity/inhumanity of the human race over time, I would have to say that we're just as bad and just as good as we have ever been; the only thing that's changed is the means with which we act, and, thus, the results. The 20th century had a hell of a death toll, in regards to wars, etc., but only as a flip side to the technologies and philosophies which have improved the standard of living for everyone (at least, in theory).

[AlohaDawg]

But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.

Although personally I think that the moral thing is to turn a body back into fertilizer as rapidly as possible after death. Kind of like in Dune.

We were created in the image of a benevolent and loving creator and given, however briefly, a paradise and a partner to care for. My personal belief is that a major reason for the creation of beings with free will and the capacity to love is that God desires very much to be loved by us and that one way that we demonstrate our love for God is to demonstrate our love for each other and our respect for the gifts we have been given. Our bodies, creation, and each other are great gifts and this treatment of each other is really disrespectful of that gift and the Giver of it. My personal favorite illustration of this is in Genesis: there are two original sins there. Eve eats of the apple, sure. But worse yet, she offers it to Adam. At this point Adam has a choice and it's a doozy:

Eve or God?

The guy chose the girl (and ultimately, temptations of the world of every kind) over God. (and (1) men still do this today! and (2) This places a rightful amount of the BLAME for the fall of mankind back on Adam who deserves at least a portion of the blame women have been getting forever) This was heartbreaking for God who came looking for them and could not find them because they were hiding, naked and ashamed. God was angry

BUT He also made clothes for Adam and Eve.

God wants to be loved and IMHO created mankind to love him and truly feels hurt when He does everything for us and we still turn away.

Ever been in a relationship like that? How about being in one for millions of years? Multiplied a few billion times?

The body may be a temporary vessel as you say; more possibly to the point it is the temple in which we carry that bit of God-ness we have within. That tiny piece of the Holy Spirit that we tend and nourish until that moment when we return with it to God.

I guess I feel like that temple is desecrated by this 'art' we are discussing,  not so much by what is done to it (bad enough!) but for the reasons behind both the artists 'art' and the public's desire to view it (and paying so much for the opportunity'.

Miles: having a hard time calling the dead 'people' is natural, I think, for many people - I think that it's far too easy to extend that difficulty beyond that - say, the mentally challenged or the very old or the comatose or the handicapped - or, to some, unborn babies. (by this I don't mean you but I mean to imply that the passage of time naturally causes changes (erosion in this case) of social thought.)

When I mentioned earlier about mankind's stewardship of humanity 'slipping' I was speaking to the fact that there are so many people on this planet now, we have so much more information and such better ways of communicating (and the benefit of knowledge and understanding of past bad behavior) and things seem to get no better - and worse, some us, perhaps an alarming increasing number, seem to tend to dehumanize some people in the groups listed above and others.

We were meant to be biodegradable. We weren't, I thinkn't,  meant to be disposable.

Also, as an aside to the end of Miles' post  I believe some Jewish beliefs include bodily reincarnation at judgment, as well as some protestant groups but the Catholic church (now) and most protestant churches I'm aware of allow cremation. So I'm neither here nor there on the odds of my personal response to Gideon's Trumpet come that day based on the method of my respectful disposal. You are very right in that it's not (certainly shouldn't be) the central point of any denomination's teachings.

What should count is what you do while you are alive, of course.

[Doc]

I disagree with the assumption that this sort of display results in reduced respect for the human body and therefore humanity and God.

While I have no particular desire to go see this exhibit (out of disinterest rather than revulsion or something similar) from what I've seen on the site many of the corpses are arranged in lifelike poses. Seeing dead bodies arranged in a way that emphasises that these were once living things must drive home the fragility of our own bodies, which can't help but build respect and wonder if not for those around us then at least for our own bodies. In this way I think this exhibit is superior to a medical display which are usually (in my experience as someone who has handled a preserved head and similar and not realised it was real until later) clinical in the extreme and work to make us think of corpses as something totally removed from ourselves when really nothing could be further from the truth. What else can everyone in the world truly have in common except that one day we'll be just like those bodies.

This is all of course based on my previous statements about full consent and so on. I don't know enough to judge this particular exhibit but that has nothing to do with the content (that I have seen) and more to do with the shadiness brought up already. I don't think this sort of exhibit is unethical in itself.

To brighten the mood slightly: Dawg every time I read your well reasoned and obviously very personal posts I get to the end '<<Woodberry HELL-O!!>>' makes me laugh every time.

Edited to move a single comma. Because I love you so. Sorry there are are not more synonyms for body.