4 ms·

Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of living people?

csdvrx 3y ago
> Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of living people? Let's start by looting rich dead people fortune the day they die: Steve Jobs money could have been used to reduce the US national debt!
- tombert 3y ago
  It's a funny sentiment but I don't think Steve Jobs' entire fortune would put the smallest dent into the national debt. A quick google indicates he was worth about 8 billion, while the national debt in 2011 was around 15 trillion. 15 trillion minus 8 billion is still basically 15 trillion...
  - toyg 3y ago
    Would still have paid for a lot of university debt, food-stamp, or Medicare...
Barrin92 3y ago
out of respect? Paraphrasing Chesterton, tradition is refusing to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. If I respect an author enough to spend hours of my life reading her work, why should I discard her opinion the moment she dies? If you're going to honor one thing about a person it probably ought to be their will.
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  Is the profession of a historian inherently immoral then? How many things we know and how many of them are of crucial historical importance that were not supposed to be known?
  - ozim 3y ago
    Idea is that historians don’t deal with recently deceased and they are not digging into their close relatives or friends. I do wish my close ones to obey my will. I don’t care about some random person 50 years later after I die. I will also obey the will of my relatives and close ones to show that I respect the will so when it is my turn to go away others will treat me as I treated others.
    - Almondsetat 3y ago
      >Idea is that historians don’t deal with recently deceased Cold War historians exist and have to deal with people both recently deceased or still alive. Should Cold War history research be locked away for a century or more?
cogman10 3y ago
Because it's nice to live in a society where the living isn't tramatised by the knowledge of what happens to your legacy after you die. For example, it could be argued that the best way to dispose of corpses is composting and not cemeteries or cremation. With that in mind, should the state not impose that everyone is composted? Even though I personally wouldn't care if that's the ultimate fate of my body, lots of people DO care about that. There would be a harm done to society if something like this was forced on the remains of their loved ones. So the round about answer is, because it's a nice thing to do that makes people feel good and that has value. The fact that we are having this discussion sort of underlines the issue with going against the wishes of the dead. It makes people uncomfortable and upset. That being said, it probably wouldn't feel nearly as ghoulish if Garcia was dead for more than a couple of years. The reason it feels uncomfortable is her family is going against her wishes to publish his book ostensibly for the money. That feels a little like grave robbing. (Which, again, could be viewed in the same light. Why does grave robbing matter?)
chmod775 3y ago
Because it will put those who are still living at ease. Dying is a touchy topic already, and the expectation of having one's wishes honored after one's death can inform decisions while still alive. Also yeah. Disrespecting a perfectly reasonable wish of a deceased and tainting their legacy is just a deeply dishonorable thing and I will actively shun people who do so.
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  someone's legacy != someone's curated image
  - chmod775 3y ago
    A writer's works is definitely their legacy.
    - Almondsetat 3y ago
      Also the unpublished works
      - chmod775 3y ago
        Most definitely not if you have them destroyed like T.P. What was even your point about "someone's curated image"? Was that supposed to go somewhere or are you planning to impart pieces of your wisdom one statement at a time, hoping people will extrapolate some sort of argument in the most charitable manner? I really cannot be bothered, especially since it seems like we're just splitting hairs here and arguing about definitions.
        Almondsetat 3y ago
        Your legacy is by definition everything that you leave behind. If you wrote a book that went unpublished and you didn't completely destroy it then it's part of your legacy by default and it doesn't "taint" it if it gets rediscovered. What might get "tainted" is the public image you wanted to uphold, which is made of a subset (usually small) of your legacy. The point is that refusing to publish a work because it might "taint" someone's legacy is the same as refusing to public a historical academic paper because some new findings you discovered might "taint" some medieval king's legacy. You're not tainting anything, you're just uncovering more truth and more details which will be useful to future people to reach their own conclusions.

> Why should a dead person's wishes bind the actions of living people? Let's start by looting rich dead people fortune the day they die: Steve Jobs money could have been used to reduce the US national debt!

tombert 3y ago
It's a funny sentiment but I don't think Steve Jobs' entire fortune would put the smallest dent into the national debt. A quick google indicates he was worth about 8 billion, while the national debt in 2011 was around 15 trillion. 15 trillion minus 8 billion is still basically 15 trillion...
- toyg 3y ago
  Would still have paid for a lot of university debt, food-stamp, or Medicare...

Barrin92 3y ago

out of respect? Paraphrasing Chesterton, tradition is refusing to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. If I respect an author enough to spend hours of my life reading her work, why should I discard her opinion the moment she dies? If you're going to honor one thing about a person it probably ought to be their will.

Almondsetat 3y ago
Is the profession of a historian inherently immoral then? How many things we know and how many of them are of crucial historical importance that were not supposed to be known?
- ozim 3y ago
  Idea is that historians don’t deal with recently deceased and they are not digging into their close relatives or friends. I do wish my close ones to obey my will. I don’t care about some random person 50 years later after I die. I will also obey the will of my relatives and close ones to show that I respect the will so when it is my turn to go away others will treat me as I treated others.
  - Almondsetat 3y ago
    >Idea is that historians don’t deal with recently deceased Cold War historians exist and have to deal with people both recently deceased or still alive. Should Cold War history research be locked away for a century or more?

cogman10 3y ago

Because it's nice to live in a society where the living isn't tramatised by the knowledge of what happens to your legacy after you die. For example, it could be argued that the best way to dispose of corpses is composting and not cemeteries or cremation. With that in mind, should the state not impose that everyone is composted? Even though I personally wouldn't care if that's the ultimate fate of my body, lots of people DO care about that. There would be a harm done to society if something like this was forced on the remains of their loved ones. So the round about answer is, because it's a nice thing to do that makes people feel good and that has value. The fact that we are having this discussion sort of underlines the issue with going against the wishes of the dead. It makes people uncomfortable and upset. That being said, it probably wouldn't feel nearly as ghoulish if Garcia was dead for more than a couple of years. The reason it feels uncomfortable is her family is going against her wishes to publish his book ostensibly for the money. That feels a little like grave robbing. (Which, again, could be viewed in the same light. Why does grave robbing matter?)

chmod775 3y ago

Because it will put those who are still living at ease. Dying is a touchy topic already, and the expectation of having one's wishes honored after one's death can inform decisions while still alive. Also yeah. Disrespecting a perfectly reasonable wish of a deceased and tainting their legacy is just a deeply dishonorable thing and I will actively shun people who do so.

Almondsetat 3y ago
someone's legacy != someone's curated image
- chmod775 3y ago
  A writer's works is definitely their legacy.
  - Almondsetat 3y ago
    Also the unpublished works
    - chmod775 3y ago
      Most definitely not if you have them destroyed like T.P. What was even your point about "someone's curated image"? Was that supposed to go somewhere or are you planning to impart pieces of your wisdom one statement at a time, hoping people will extrapolate some sort of argument in the most charitable manner? I really cannot be bothered, especially since it seems like we're just splitting hairs here and arguing about definitions.
      - Almondsetat 3y ago
        Your legacy is by definition everything that you leave behind. If you wrote a book that went unpublished and you didn't completely destroy it then it's part of your legacy by default and it doesn't "taint" it if it gets rediscovered. What might get "tainted" is the public image you wanted to uphold, which is made of a subset (usually small) of your legacy. The point is that refusing to publish a work because it might "taint" someone's legacy is the same as refusing to public a historical academic paper because some new findings you discovered might "taint" some medieval king's legacy. You're not tainting anything, you're just uncovering more truth and more details which will be useful to future people to reach their own conclusions.