No, now we’re entertaining the notion that for an act to be justly considered immoral, it must have a negative effect on a person. Breaking a will has a negative effect on a person: whoever it was who was supposed to be the beneficiary of the will. Breaking a promise to burn the Pope’s private diaries hurts nobody. So why is it immoral?
Whoever said his desires had merit? Sure as fuck-all wasn’t me. “Influential” is not the same thing as “good,” “correct,” or even “useful.”
And you’re saying those were good things? That’s… novel.
The moral fiber which binds men and women of verity has been assaulted. Can you actually be wholly obtuse to that truth?
The people who are behind his fast-tracking to sainthood on one hand hold JPII in high esteem, yet disregard his wishes regarding his personal works. You can’t have it both ways. I say his desires have merit, and I’m not Catholic. Kindly cite where I attributed that claim to you.
Interpret as you will. The planet has a way of cleansing itself on a periodic basis. Beyond that you’re into the territory of what if Kennedy hadn’t been shot, and on and on into the night, and I’m not going there.
My original posit is that the departed gentleman was wronged and assaulted by one trusted to offer him a greater measure of respect than that which was delivered.
Perhaps, but that really doesn’t bother me. Historians sometimes have to do things which aren’t exactly pleasant in order to further human knowledge, such as study a tomb. Do you think that the ancient pharaoh’s wishes to be undisturbed in their Houses of Eternity trumps our need to understand their culture (and save their treasures from tomb robbers)?
Whether or not you think it’s “disgusting” historians always pry into the private lives of the figures whom they’re studying. Think of all of the books which have been written speculating on Lincoln’s sexuality and his marriage to Mary Todd. Had he left a diary, a lot of misconceptions would have been cleared. Instead, we rely on the testimony of those around him, and I don’t think I need to tell you how reliable eyewitness testimony is.
I believe that history trumps a single person’s wishes. In other words, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.” I know that you do not value history as I do, but it truly is a need to understand the people who shaped world events. As they said of Lincoln, “Now he belongs to the ages.”
As Miller said, I’m not salivating over the personal life of some dim-witted movie star, I’m talking about a man who influenced world policy, who, at least in a small way, had an effect on everyone’s life. There is a vast difference, here.
You’d be surprised how much I value history. You’d be surprised at how much I dislike Isabel Burton. However, my feelings, my desires, are irrelevant to the issue.
Nobody has a responsibility to make life easier for future historians. If someone chooses to destroy their live’s trappings, that is entirely their decision, and historians will just have to make do. I have no issues at all with historians prying into people’s lives; I have an issue with the attitude that historians are owed a person’s most inner thoughts. You’re not. If someone chooses to leave all their writings or whatever to posterity, fine - if not, also fine.
I myself am somewhat split on this issue. I consider myself a man of honor and I keep my word as best as humanly possible. Even more so to friends. I am also a true lover of history and factual portrayal. That said, I’ve considered a slightly different scenerio.
If my Grandfather had asked that I promise to destroy all of his property upon his death and while rummaging through it I find an original draft of the Constitution with signifigant differences from the one we have today. I recall him saying something about it in my youth and his fear this might have a negitive influence on our image of our Forefathers.
What are my options? Keep my word to my Grandfather, a promise I hold very important, or do the right thing from a historical perspective. I like to think I would do the historically correct thing but it would be after great soul-searching and with great regret to my broken promise.
Me: Why is this immoral?
You: Because it’s immoral!
Good answer, numbnuts.
So, when you said, “The real paradox that I read in these posts is that if he was a such an important person and figure, don’t his desires have merit?” you were talking about “the people fast tracking [him] to sainthood?” I was not aware that the College of Cardinals posted to the SDMB.
That’s good, because it’s entirely irrelevant to anything anyone has posted in this thread.
Point 1:granted, that’s your/their job. Point 2: And what, exactly, would have been gained by having Lincoln’s report on the matter? Even if he was gay, what does that tell you other than the (generally undisputed) fact that some people of importance are closeted?
The way I learned it, the concept of “rights” is that they are things which are so important to individuals that they should be upheld for “the few” even when “the many” don’t like it. The right to privacy prevents police from searching your house without a warrant, even if they feel sure you’re making bombs in there. In my opinion, publishing someone’s diary against their will violates their rights, and should not be done even if it benefits others.
And what if I feel a need to understand Brad Pitt’s underwear? Does that give me the right to invade his house? No? Even after he’s dead?
As I said before, I think it would be great if public figures would allow posthumous inquiry into their private lives. I don’t think “history is only of interest to historians”. I think that historians can, and should, mine the data contained in personal records left extant either deliberately or by oversight. But I don’t understand where people get the idea that historians are justified in violating an individual’s (regardless of importance) right to privacy as embodied by his stated wish to destroy personal records.
It is generally accepted both legally and morally that individual rights can be temporarily violated when there is a clear and present danger to be avoided. Perhaps I would be more willing to see your side of the arguement if you showed me a clear and present benefit of retaining personal records.* I find your need to understand insufficiently compelling to violate someone else’s privacy.
*Please, no more of the Kafka stuff. I’ve already said I differentiate between intended-for-an-audience works of art and intended-for-privacy personal diaries. That goes double for goverment documents such as county paperwork and Constitutions.
Oh, and Miller? Lying to your dying friend is generally considered to be immoral in many cultures, ya know?
If the pope tacitly accepts a loss of personal privacy as a result of taking a position of immense personal power, how do you feel about those who have no choice because they have personal power due to birth or accident?
If the benefit to society of personal diaries is so huge that it allows you to violate both privacy and written probate, why don’t we dictate that every important person keep one?
Well, if he’d written, “Oh, how I love Mary! She’s the light of my life!” a good deal of ridiculous speculation about his secret, undying love for Anne Rutledge would have been ended. Further, if he’d written, “Man, last night we got it on three times. I can’t get enough of that chick! No one turns me on like she does!” it’d be a pretty good indication he may have been straight. (Of course, Lincoln would have been more circumspect, but you get the drift.)
Sure, while you’re alive. After you’re dead, your heirs can sign waivers allowing even your phsychiatric records opened to perusal. Hell, even your autopsy record is usually open to study, and I can’t think of much more intimate than a description of your innards.
Your rights end when you die. Your WILL may be legally binding as to bequests and such, but requests are just that-- requests. I can request my sister give me twenty bucks, and she can refuse. After my death, I can request she have my entire collection of books burned, but she can wisely refuse and donate them to a library.
Apparently you misunderstand the difference between celebrity and history-maker. The condition of Brad’s knickers will not change our perspective on world events, or give us a deeper understanding of political manuevering.
Okay, how 'bout this: I’ve heard that the Pope created a “secret” cardinal in a country in which there is no religious freedom, and his life could be in danger if his identity were known. Consequently, il papa told no one.
Possibly he confided this information in his diary. How else will the church know whom to recognize? Should the situation change, how will they know who is the real cardinal if a group of men stepped forward all claiming they were the one chosen?
That’s just a small example of the mysteries which future historians will face. Much needless speculation into JP’s motives will be avoided because the records will be there.
Nor do you need worry that the National Enquirer will be publishing the pope’s masturbatory fantasies. The Vatican is notoriously stingy with access to records. Evenhighly respected historians often have a long, long wait before they’re finally approved, and then records are sometimes truncated.
File me under “The executor should follow the deceased’s wishes, barring some legal claim by another party.”
What I don’t understand is why, if it were so important to the Pope that his papers be destroyed, it wasn’t done while he was alive? It’s not as though he died in a sudden, unexpected accident. “Mr. Private Secretary, haul those papers over to my sick bed and I’ll watch while you shred them” - that sort of thing.
I could easily see the argument that executor knew the request for document destruction was pro forma, and Pope didn’t really want them destroyed. Barring some concrete evidence that supports such a theory, I saw let 'em burn despite thie historical loss.
Historians who actually work on the papacy will, I suspect, have a rather more measured view of the matter than Lissa. Sure, historians would always rather that the crucial document they need survives (especially if it is going to confirm their pet theory), but they tend to be surprisingly sanguine about such matters. Indeed, pretty much the first lesson a professional historian needs to learn is that everything doesn’t survive, however big the event, however important the person. They, of all people, cannot afford to have hang-ups over what does and does not survive.
The second lesson they then learn is that what does survive is mostly the dross. It is easy to become sentimental about historical documents and even easier to point to the examples of the single document that alone proves some significant point. But most historical research is much, much more tedious than that. Quite simply, the proportion of documents which would make any real difference to historical knowledge if that particular document was destroyed today is vanishingly small. What usually makes the difference is not the individual document or even the individual collection, but rather the totality of the survivals relating to a person, event, subject etc. Which is why the best historical research tends to involve the accumulation of detail from a wide range of different sources, not the discovery of the single sensational document.
Would the destruction of these particular papers make any real difference to future historical debates about John Paul II? Almost certainly not. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the vast heaps of information about his papacy that otherwise exists. The man published lots of books (several of them autobiographical), he made thousands of public statements, his official archives will be huge, his private letters are especially likely to have been kept by the recipients and thousands of people who knew him will leave records of their impressions. The evidence for any future understanding of him will be literally overwhelming. His private papers will doubtless help flesh out some of the details. But it is naïve to assume that papers will be revealing, let alone more truthful, just because they were originally private. Personally, I doubt that any experienced historian is currently holding their breath over what they might contain. They will know that individual archives have a habit of turning out to be rather less important than prior wishful thinking might suggest.
Which is not to say that if Dziwisz thinks they’re worth keeping, they shouldn’t be kept. The answer to question as to who the hell he thinks he is, is that he’s the man John Paul II trusted to protect his interests. Who the hell are we to say that John Paul II misjudged Dziwisz or that Dziwisz doesn’t understand John Paul II?
There is one final angle no one’s picked up on. The whole will is shot through with what one might call the pose of papal modesty. Popes are expected to be authority figures while, at the same time, protesting their humility. Why did John Paul say that he wanted his papers to be destroyed? Because making provision for them to be preserved would imply that he thought that they were important and that, by extension, he was important too. Saying that they should be destroyed implied the opposite. One suspects that Dziwisz’s considered view is that this was a piece of deliberate and conventional false modesty and has treated it as such. He is not the first papal executor to have done so.
No, you haven’t. You’ve stated your position, and when challenged on it, you’ve stated it again. You haven’t done jack-shit to support it.
Hope all you want. I won’t give a shit. I’ll be dead.
Most cultures feel the same way about me and my boyfriend. Ask me how much I care about what “many cultures” consider to be immoral. Or, better, yet, come back with an argument that amounts to something a tad more substantial than an appeal to popularity.
Despite what you think, most good historians do not have such a blase attitude toward documentation. I know quite a few of them, and I can testify to the fact that they try to preserve as much as possible, disregarding their own current judgement as to what is important because one never knows what future historians will value. Something which seems utterly inconsequential today may be a vital clue to those in the future.
Archivists and people involved in the preservation of documents and artifacts do not think in terms of what importance something will have next week, or in ten years, but must try to imagine what people a hundred or even a thousand years from now will want.
One of the problems is that things seem so commonplace to us that they don’t get preserved. Off of the top of my head, I’m thinking of an ATM reciept-- things that no one thinks to keep.
Of course, in many institutions, space limitations mean that judgements of what to sacrifice must be made, but the Vatican doesn’t really have that problem.
The amount of exceptions to that last statement tends to indicate the opposite. While JP may end up being more well-documented than most, it is often a single document which changes perceptions. A good historian knows not to pooh-pooh small details.
I have personally seen the results of this. We discovered a large cache of papers in our archives which had never been properly sorted or stored. The papers related to an important family in our city’s history, but were one of those tasks which kept getting shoved to the back because the contents seemed to be of little import. I spent weeks combing through them, and for the most part, they weren’t anything special. But then I found one single letter, dealing with a stock sale which mentioned needing to get a signature from a family member who’d been put in a mental institution. It was the only confirmation we had ever seen that this person had, indeed, been mentally ill. One single paper changed the known history of this family.
Any historian will tell you that the value of primary source documents is far greater than those that have been diluted through the lens of others’ perceptions.
My favorite area of history is Tudor England. I own a lot of books on the subject. I have seen how fallacies get passed from one book to the other by historians who base their work off of the research of others. Misinterpreting a single word has led to generations of scholars believing incorrect information which only gets corrected when a historian actually goes and studies the original source documents and draws new conclusions.
In a way, history is like science in that new theories get proposed and are argued for and against by other historians. Occasionally, a historian will catch something that everyone else overlooked though it was staring them right in the face.
Right. I get it. We would know more about Lincoln’s sexuality. (Who-hoo!) But, to repeat myself, what have we gained? Does knowing his gender preference benefit us in any way sufficient to justify violating his privacy?
Duh. Obviously this secretary isn’t legally bound to destroy the diaries - but some people feel it was a moral obligation, both to protect the pope’s privacy and to live up to his stated word. If the secretary, as some have suggested, was ignoring what he perceived to be a “pro forma” request, then that’s fine - he was, in fact, complying with his dead friend’s intentions.
Apparently you misunderstood my arguement. I was trying to point out that your perceived need to understand the history-maker of your choice is simply a desire and is not inherently more noble than any celebrity-hound’s desire. The curiousity, however well-intentioned, of the public does not alone give me any reason to publish private diaries.
You don’t think such private matters should be made public? I thought you were arguing that people of importance gave up all privacy.
I think you read too many spy stories. You’re going to tell me the Vatican has nowhere to store secret records of its activities?
I’m still totally unconviced that forcibly retaining private diaries presents any obvious benefit to warrant the intrusion.
mischievous
[aside] Miller, are you completely obtuse? Here’s a summary of the conversation as I see it (please note that I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just clarifying how I’ve interpreted what has been said):
Miller: No living person has been hurt, therefore the act is moral.
Danceswithcats: Hurt aside, a person violated his sworn vow and I see that as immoral.
Miller: You called the act immoral without basis.
mischievous: His/her basis for calling the act immoral was that it involved breaking a vow, an act which many people consider immoral.
Miller: Lots of people have messed-up ideas of morality.
So, Miller, could you please stop changing the playing ground here and address the arguement that breaking a vow (particularly to a dying person) does/does not constitute an immoral act? Or would that be appealing to popularity?[/aside]
Historians and Lincoln buffs think so. They are under the odd impression that a man’s personality shapes his decisions and that understanding the man goes a long ways in understanding his actions. Considering privacy was somewhat of a shaky concept at the time anyway, and further considering that he’s DEAD, I doubt if Old Abe would much care.
And you still don’t understand that it’s a personal “curitosity”. I don’t give a shit, personally, and he’s certainly not my history maker of choice. I don’t even care to read the diaries, should they ever be published.
Moreover, I find it kind of sad and depressing that you consider a historian’s desire to preserve the present and understand the past the same as idiotic celebrity worshipping voyeurism. I guess if you don’t understand the distinction, I could never fully explain it to you.
The primary interest of JP’s diaries is why he made the decisions that he did, not his favorite color or which Backstreet Boy he thought was the cutest. His personal preferences are of interest only because they give us a fuller understanding of the man, but the real importance is to get, shall we say, an “insider’s” view of world events through the eyes of the man who shaped them.
I, for one, see no “nobility” in robbing the world of important records to suit one man’s wishes. Yes, it’s nice to comply with someone’s final requests, but not when the price to mankind is so high.
I didn’t say they SHOULDN’T, I said they probably WOULDN’T be published because of the Vatican’s stinginess with access. It’s highly unlikely they would allow access a writer whose intentions are to dig through and mine all of the “juicy” bits (even assuming there ARE any.) Most likely, access will only be granted to very serious and very respected papal scholars and historians who would probably gloss over any such scribblings unless they appeared to affect the pope’s judgements on certain issues or people. Historians aren’t interested in tabloid-style publicity for their works.
Actually, I don’t read spy stories.
I don’t know where you got that. Of course they do, it’s just that the pope certainly kept some cards close to his vest. I have every confidence that if JP ever promised to keep a secret until he died that he certainly did.
Here
is a news story about the “secret cardinal” which states:
His diary may reveal the man’s identity and JP’s reasons for secrecy.
And so you most likely will remain. But no matter. There are people who understand the importance of records. The dogs may bark, but the caravan passes by.
I’m going to jump into this thread, a day late and a dollar short as normal, with a few questions/points.
First could the executor of the will at least followed it ‘in letter’ if not ‘in spirit’ and copied all the documents and destroyed the originals ? That would appear to be less disregarding of the pervious popes wishes.
My main question, though, is where do you the draw the line ? What’s historically important and what isn’t ? Who makes the call ? Should we save anything in case it becomes important ? That’s the problem here, people are making a completely arbitary judegement – sure it’s obviously important when it’s the pope, but you have to make the call somewhere presidents, movie stars, authors, architects, and what about the assistants and secrateries to the historical figures do we keep their diaries too. What about the family and friends of all of these ? What about Joe Bloggs down the road – does he get to destroy his stuff ?
I do see the point that many of you are trying to make on the ‘preserve for posterity’ side, but I think it leads to a world of grey areas and arguments. Best to leave it to the deceased to say what he or she wants done.
I believe If you agree to do something for someone, you should do it. No matter if they’re dead or not. The time to disagree, or find out their reasons, or try and change their mind is before they pass away. You don’t let them slip away and then do whatever you damn well please.
I’m going to get flamed for this but the in the Terri Schiavo case we a lot of us agreed that she was beyond the point that she was aware or cared or knew what was happening, but it was the right thing to do, in many of your minds, for her husband to try and get her last wishes honoured. Totally different ? Or just different sides of the same line ?
And I, for one, refuse to believe the pope didn’t have good reasons for asking for his papers to be destroyed. Although he would have likely believed that God would preserve whatever He decided the earth should have, and perhaps Dziwisz believes he’s an agent of God in this respect.
You guys are so screwed. mischievous, nobody is changing the playing ground here, not even you. Clearly, defying a dying man’s wishes is immoral to you under all circumstances (presumably excluding violations of law). This is practically by definition. It doesn’t need justification, it’s something you hold to be true. Other people do not hold this to be true, and the key issue is whether someone is harmed. In the case of disrespecting a dead man’s wishes where they specified a distribution of funds, the beneficiaries are harmed. In the case of preserving historical documents, no-one is harmed. So miller has no problem with it.
Both your arguments have complete merit. They’re just starting from different assumptions about what is moral. So quit being a fucking dick (that goes for anyone else who’s being a fucking dick, I just thought the post by mischievous was a nice place to start )
I myself am not too phased about the general promise to a dead man issue, but more the specific case of making private diaries and writings public. If the guy doesn’t want that, I feel this should be respected.
I have addressed the argument that breaking a vow to a dying person is immoral. I’ve said, over and over, that it is not, because breaking the vow causes no harm to anyone. You and danceswithcats keep saying it is immoral, but you’re not saying why. What is your basis for determining what is, and is not, immoral?
)