Ethics and taste and what we can do.

[ywenz]

What's the picture for? So you can sit back at your photog meet-ups and pass around your best efforts at photo-journalism?

note: question not directed at Jon per say, but everyone who shares this attitude...

 

[MelanieC]

We'll simply agree to disagree on this, Melanie. I think that because of your personal experience, you may have personalized this too much to be objective.

That's incredibly condescending, Frank, and I don't appreciate it.

 

[foolproof]

i dont do photog meet-up's. where i come from people dont do that sort of thing. well maybe they do, but i aint a camera clubber, or an amateur. im a student photographer. i want to be a working documentary photographer for the rest of my life. its a personal thing which only a person who has the same want for the direction in life photographically wise as me can understand. for these reasons i take these photographs. as ash said above, they may never be used and just cataloged away and thats it, but at least ive taken it, and pushed myself a little further, both personally and photographically, and that all im trying to do in life at the moment.

 

[FrankS]

So you're saying your personal experience plays no role and is not a factor in shaping your opinion, and that this is not an emotional issue for you? I'm not meaning to sound condescending.

 

[Ash]

everyone needs to take more time constructing their responses... and maybe spend more time out taking photo's than on these forums! (myself included)

 

[foolproof]

im a naturally shy person, but have a burning want to do my best to be a good documentarian of the world around me. this shot was taken just a few days after the last thread about this issue, and i had to take it. i felt sorry for the man and the situation he was in, but i had to. if i could explain it properly i would, but i cant. i got plenty of looks from people standing around, but in my head they are just as guilty of voyeurism as me. i cant really expain it clearly right now, not even to myself.

 

[Marc-A.]

It would not be ethicly wrong if it was your job to report it.

That’s the criterion of virtue ethics, and it's the only one in my view that can apply to this situation.

Then I agree with Photogdave’s account: “When I was a newspaper photographer it was my job to show up in these situations and shoot something. I was trained to show the emergency service people doing their job and to not show the victim in a way that would be embarrassing.
This was a very difficult and uncomforable part of the job. Many people at these scenes don't appreciate a photographer there, and it makes it worse when a non-professional is there snapping away. I don't know a single news photog who enjoys covering accidents and deaths. »

And I also agree with Melanie’s objection, which is between virtue ethics and utilitarianism: “Actions mean something. If it isn't your job and there isn't a "greater good" being served, if you're taking pictures of death or suffering purely for your own amusement, then sorry, you're just a vulture. End of story. »

I don’t have anything to add to their arguments. Maybe this: there is always room for disagreement in ethics, because we can value different things, different principles … ; but in this case, I don’t know any ethical conception (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology …) that would justify the choice of making a photo of suffering people for personal pleasure or even for esthetical reason.

Best,

Marc

 

[BrianShaw]

everyone needs to take more time constructing their responses... and maybe spend more time out taking photo's than on these forums! (myself included)

Great idea. I've been spending so much time constructing my response that I haven't posted one.

 

[Ash]

That's probably for the best Brian, since my initial post could be seen to have some radical views behind it. surprisingly I'm the one who has yet to be attacked. Ethics and taste are very very touchy subjects and I think passion is getting the better of people here.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm ready.

Melanie is correct.

I don't know anything about htis high-brow college talk (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, etc) but it doesn't matter because it's just talk.

 

[Marc-A.]

I'm ready.

Melanie is correct.

I don't know anything about htis high-brow college talk (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, etc) but it doesn't matter because it's just talk.

Sorry Brian 😱
"Melanie is correct": we totally agree on that.
Cheers,
Marc

 

[Marc-A.]

No prob Brian. I'm conditionned by my job ...
Marc

 

[gareth]

I don't think there is a simple answer to this.

If we are talking accidents, or something that you have happened upon in the street...

Well maybe ask yourself what if you were that person? Or what if it was your friend, your partner or mother etc. How would you feel about them being photographed?

There are also often different ways to photograph such happenings as well.

And perhaps if people saw some of the uncensored photographs of war that are out there (rather than what is generally used in mainstream media) we might not be so complacent about our governments going to war in the first place. But then maybe that's another topic.

 

[foolproof]

ethics is a luxury of the middle classes. every social class has different ethical perspectives and this is just mine.

 

[MelanieC]

So you're saying your personal experience plays no role and is not a factor in shaping your opinion, and that this is not an emotional issue for you? I'm not meaning to sound condescending.

Look, I was trained as a journalist. The first thing you are taught is that there is no such thing as objectivity. You just do the best you can. I believe that this is true.

I am also trained as an anthropologist. The first thing they teach you is that everyone is a product of his or her own experiences and has corresponding biases. I also believe that this is true.

Of course I am not objective, because of my personal experiences. The condescending part is that you imply this makes my opinion invalid. It also appears, although this is only my interpretation that you believe that someone else, perhaps you, who has not experienced what I have experienced can therefore somehow be more objective about this debate. It could also be argued that without any emotional investment, it is impossible to be truly objective because you cannot see both sides.

It isn't as if I can't step outside myself and consider another viewpoint in this matter. I'm perfectly capable of doing this, and I have. I still find it personally repugnant to take photos of other people's suffering for purely self-serving reasons. Like I said, other people can make different choices and that's fine, we all see things differently. But it does shape how I perceive those people and, yes, judge them.

As long as I'm not making laws, why do you care?

 

[Ash]

We wouldn't be so complacent about crime either, if we saw the uncensored images of the results it has on many.

 

[gareth]

We wouldn't be so complacent about crime either, if we saw the uncensored images of the results it has on many.

War is a crime, but yes, absolutely.

Glasgow photographer David Gillanders is working on a photo project on knife crime and violence in Glasgow. His work is amazing, and I look forward to seeing some of the photos from this one of his latest projects. I also hope it is a success for him, and indeed that it generates some sort of positive reaction.

So yeah I totally agree Ash.

 

[Marc-A.]

ethics is a luxury of the middle classes. every social class has different ethical perspectives and this is just mine.

Sorry my friend, not only this argument is lazy, but also inconsistent:
1. it's lazy because it means: everything's relative; the middle classes have their own ethics, others have their own, I've got mine ... yes you're right, and Saddam has his own. Mere relativity is a non sense from a logical point of view.
2. it's inconsistent because you say
a. ethics is a luxury of the middle classes
b. every class has its onw ethics
Then what? Ethics is a luxury of every class then. Or do you mean, which is worse, that ethics is the luxury of the middle classes, and it does not apply the other classes?
In fact, even if there's room for "reasonable disagreement", there are arguments that can't be sustained.
My criticism is not addressed to you, as a person, but to your argument.
Cheers,
Marc

 

[Jamie123]

I've had a quite severe street accident when I was younger (don't worry, I'm fine now 🙂 )and at the time (and also now thinking back) I couldn't have cared less if someone had taken some photos. Someone even had the great idea of painting a stick figure on the pavement where I laid with red paint. Maybe a little tasteless but that's a different story. Never really bothered me all that much.

Having said that I don't see the point in taking photos when someone else has an accident unless you're a journalist. Even if you're trying to be a documetary photographer I don't see the point. If you're a docuentary photographer you should pick a subject and do a series of photos on that subject (i.e. documenting it). Unless you're doing a photo-series on road accident, what's the point in taking a snapshot of a dead or wounded person and an emergency car?

 

[Ash]

I suggest a new forum here:

OFF TOPIC DEBATE


that way issues like this can be discussed in a *buzzword alert* hypothetical sense, and no-one will be offended (like Melanie) and yet people can express opinions that are obviously something to be argued with. This has become a hot topic, and I'm sure there will be more in future, so maybe a forum would isolate them from the general chat?