Let's say there's a difference between 1) making a living and 2)
exploitation. Do you consider what this guy's doing to be #1 or #2?
> so it's immoral not because it's exploitation, but because the
> exploitation is blatant?
No, it's so distasteful because it's so blatant. There are in fact
different levels of exploitation. I may be exploited when one store sells
peanuts for 10 cents a pound more than somewhere else. Is that immoral? No.
Maybe moral wasn't the right word to use, maybe it was.
There's one thing I'll never do though, and that's acquiesce to those who
thinks it's wrong to express moral views and ethics. Doing so would be
allowing them to conform me to their ilk.
> I can't think of any good rational reason why he shouldn't do this.
How about simply because it's distasteful?
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: Re[8]: $50K for 8 negatives at ebay
> Hi,
>
> so it's immoral not because it's exploitation, but because the
> exploitation is blatant?
>
> I've pursued this about as far as I want to now. If anybody's interested,
> when I saw the pictures (and I'd never heard of Dale Earnhardt before he
> died) I thought it was in rather poor taste, but I couldn't really figure
> out why, and I speak as a person with a house full of books of photos
> of war, famine, pestilence and death (and other things, of course, that
are
> warm and fluffy). I can't think of any good rational reason why he
shouldn't
> do this, although I can think of plenty of irrational ones. Hmm.
>
> ---
>
> Bob
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Friday, April 27, 2001, 4:59:42 PM, you wrote:
>
> > For me, it's the fact that they were offered in a public auction format
and
> > for such an exorbitant price.
>
> > It has a BLATANT APPEARANCE of trying to profit in a big way from the
death
> > of another. It's not like he had the only pictures of the crash and was
a
> > scant resource for documentary pictures, nor his he now offering them
> > explicitly to the appropriate news organizations.
>
> > He is hoping there is someone mentally-ill enough out there that will
get
> > their jollies from this sort of thing. If these pictures weren't
already
> > purchased by the news organizations (other journalists) then what
> > journalistic value do they have at this point in time? They've had
their
> > fill, they need no more pictures of the same thing, so now he is hoping
to
> > profit from sensationalism and not journalism.
>
> > If I started a bidding war for nude pictures of my wife on an auction
site,
> > that would have more ethical and moral value than this guy's auction.
>
> > Tom C.
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
