3 ms·

If anyone believes people have a right to decide what information about them is made public, but believes they lose that right after death, I'd love to hear the

If anyone believes people have a right to decide what information about them is made public, but believes they lose that right after death, I'd love to hear the argument for that. For me, the basis for accepting the first proposition is that you buy in to self-determination as a value in and of itself, worth respecting not just because the person is around to stop you from doing whatever you want to them. In other words, if they ever had the right to say how they wanted to be treated, why do they lose that right after death? As an example, if Bob one day told you that their name is now Alice, would you say "got, it Alice!" then go back to calling them Bob on the day they die? Why not? After all, what do they care, they're dead! To me, this sounds like a variation of the same argument against respecting someone's privacy after death, and bothers me for the same reason.

smaudet 2y ago
I think the answer is buried somewhere in the mists of...time. Put another way, there is a temporal degree of respect for the dead, i.e. can you and for how long put the wishes of the dead above those of the living. Of course, for immediate death, as others have noted, there are plenty of "stakeholders", family members, etc. who have direct interest in the wishes of the dead being upheld (not having their communications exposed, as others have noted). These needs must be considered, but eventually those grandchildren will also themselves pass, and those stakes will have also vanished. Even for immediate death, the wishes of the dead can be invalid and ir-respected, such as in the case of a suicide bomber or a recently deceased captor/dictator. On the flip side, for those dead (tens of) thousands of years, we engage in a practice known as archeology, that I think you would have a hard time arguing the opposite - the information we glean from their table scraps is too valuable to worry about their death wishes, assuming they had any. In the great in-between, then, the question is, whose wishes matter more? Those of the deceased or those of the living. Usually, those of the living. And it is generally in our interest that we not disturb the dead too much, because at least we would like to live in a society that continues to grow, and does not need to disturb them (too much), respect our own wishes, etc. But ultimately, once it can be said it no longer harms any living, or any future living, then the desires of the living trump the desires of the deceased.
multjoy 2y ago
Because you are dead. You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets, and even then that is only because of bitter legal argument between the survivors of an estate.
- kelnos 2y ago
  That's not an absolute truth, that's just what you believe. I happen to believe the opposite, that a person's death does not cancel our obligations toward that person or that person's wishes. > You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets Why are assets special? Why do you draw the line there? A more consistent position would be that we're free to ignore a decedent's last will and testament because they're dead and their wishes no longer matter. But if we believe in the importance in honoring someone's will, then I think we should honor any agreement or social norm that was in effect while they were alive.
nathan_compton 2y ago
Like in all situations, I think this ultimately comes down to the circumstances and consequences. Rights are, in the end, mere principals which may help us make good decisions. At least, I've never observed a right descend from platonic space and intervene in the real world to prevent itself from being violated. If the benefits are sufficient and the consequences small enough ignoring a dead person's wishes seems like not that big of a deal to me. Its hard to see the point or benefit of misgendering a person after they have died (ceteris paribus) but sometimes a person's private writings are of large value to the rest of the world and they are, after all, dead.

smaudet 2y ago

I think the answer is buried somewhere in the mists of...time. Put another way, there is a temporal degree of respect for the dead, i.e. can you and for how long put the wishes of the dead above those of the living. Of course, for immediate death, as others have noted, there are plenty of "stakeholders", family members, etc. who have direct interest in the wishes of the dead being upheld (not having their communications exposed, as others have noted). These needs must be considered, but eventually those grandchildren will also themselves pass, and those stakes will have also vanished. Even for immediate death, the wishes of the dead can be invalid and ir-respected, such as in the case of a suicide bomber or a recently deceased captor/dictator. On the flip side, for those dead (tens of) thousands of years, we engage in a practice known as archeology, that I think you would have a hard time arguing the opposite - the information we glean from their table scraps is too valuable to worry about their death wishes, assuming they had any. In the great in-between, then, the question is, whose wishes matter more? Those of the deceased or those of the living. Usually, those of the living. And it is generally in our interest that we not disturb the dead too much, because at least we would like to live in a society that continues to grow, and does not need to disturb them (too much), respect our own wishes, etc. But ultimately, once it can be said it no longer harms any living, or any future living, then the desires of the living trump the desires of the deceased.

multjoy 2y ago

Because you are dead. You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets, and even then that is only because of bitter legal argument between the survivors of an estate.

kelnos 2y ago
That's not an absolute truth, that's just what you believe. I happen to believe the opposite, that a person's death does not cancel our obligations toward that person or that person's wishes. > You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets Why are assets special? Why do you draw the line there? A more consistent position would be that we're free to ignore a decedent's last will and testament because they're dead and their wishes no longer matter. But if we believe in the importance in honoring someone's will, then I think we should honor any agreement or social norm that was in effect while they were alive.

nathan_compton 2y ago

Like in all situations, I think this ultimately comes down to the circumstances and consequences. Rights are, in the end, mere principals which may help us make good decisions. At least, I've never observed a right descend from platonic space and intervene in the real world to prevent itself from being violated. If the benefits are sufficient and the consequences small enough ignoring a dead person's wishes seems like not that big of a deal to me. Its hard to see the point or benefit of misgendering a person after they have died (ceteris paribus) but sometimes a person's private writings are of large value to the rest of the world and they are, after all, dead.