Taking advantage of this, people make all sorts of graphics specifically to be shared. Some include only text, or quotes with relevant (or not) images. They can be funny, silly, thought provoking or heartbreaking. Some announce to the world that the individual sharing it believes in a particular faith, holds a certain political viewpoint, or just likes cute, fuzzy animals.
What seems to be very popular are graphics that juxtapose two extreme images, then make a statement comparing them in such a way as to point out the flaws of particular concept. These can actually be done well, pointing out how illogical a situation or some such is. I've shared the odd one myself, though rarely. Why? Because more often then not, they are not only done poorly, but they reveal the maker (and the sharers) to be ... well, let's just say critical thinking isn't their strong point. Either that or they so favour the supposed message, they're willing to overlook all sorts of logical fallacies to score their point.
Among the ones I've seen recently are silly ones comparing Occupy camps with customers camping overnight in store parking lots, or a particularly obnoxious one that insisted that Republicans/Teabaggers have to chose between Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ, but they can't like both, because Rand hated religion and Jesus said it's hard for rich people to get into heaven. There's just a whole lot of stupid being demonstrated with these things.
Today I saw another one that had me shaking my head. The original text was in Spanish, I believe, but the version I saw was a translation into English. On the left was a photo of two men, lips almost touching, eyes closed and half-closed, about to engage in a passionate kiss. On the right is this photo.
The caption under it reads, "If the picture on the left shocks you more than the one on the right, you need to revise your views on immorality."
What, precisely, is the maker of this graphic suggesting? Are we being told that we cannot consider two vastly different and unrelated things as being immoral at the same time? Are we being told that, if we find photo A immoral, we must necessarily view photo B moral, or vice versa? Or that our level of shock reflects our views on morality? What if we find both shocking, but for different reasons?
There's another problem with using these two photos, however. Only one of them actually deals with morality. Let's look at what morality actually means.
From Dictionary.com we have:
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us:
The term “morality” can be used either
- descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
- some other group, such as a religion, or
- accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
- normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
So what is immorality? Going back to Dictionary.com, we get:
1. immoral quality, character, or conduct; wickedness; evilness.
2. sexual misconduct.
3. an immoral act.
Merriam-Webster has an even more interesting definition.
Definition of IMMORALITY
1 : the quality or state of being immoral; especially : unchastity
2 : an immoral act or practice
Examples of IMMORALITY
<religious denominations that regard drinking, smoking, and even dancing as examples of immorality>
<a sermon about modern society's casual acceptance of or indifference to immorality>
First Known Use of IMMORALITY
circa 1566
Related to IMMORALITY
Synonyms: corruption, debauchery, depravity, vice, iniquitousness, iniquity, libertinage, libertinism, licentiousness, profligacy, sin
In essence, morality and immorality involve our choices and actions, and is often closely related to sexual behaviour (or lack of it) and vice. Morality and immorality is about what we DO.
Which brings me back to the images in question. In the one photo, we have two men about to kiss in a sexual manner. This is an act that many consider immoral, and actually fits within the definitions regarding morality and immorality. Whether someone considers it an immoral act or not, the photo is appropriate to the theme.
The caption, however, doesn't talk about that. What is does is challenge whether or not we find the one more shocking than the other - as if the two are in any way comparable. If we find men kissing more shocking then children starving, we, the viewer, are told we have misguided views on what is or isn't moral. Obviously the maker of this graphic does not view men kissing as either shocking or immoral, and it's basically telling anyone who does think so that they are the ones with messed up views on immorality. It also suggests that anyone who does think there's something wrong with two men kissing with sexual passion must also think there's nothing wrong with starving children. Or something. It's presented as an either/or situation. Either you are okay with men kissing and not okay with starving children, or you are not okay with men kissing, but are okay with starving children. Like so many of these graphics, it presents a false dichotomy.
The other photo, however, has nothing to do with morality. It shows starving children reaching out, presumably, to food. We don't actually know, though we can judge from what looks like children holding food in the background. I really don't think the creator of this graphic is suggesting the children in the photo are being moral/immoral because they're starving and appear to be reaching for food. If the photo were of someone denying them food, that would then make it appropriate to the theme. Since it's more likely the children are actually being given food, this makes it an even more inappropriate juxtaposition.
The second photo shows us a tragic situation, but it does not illustrate morality or immorality.
I have actually seen this photo of the starving children used in such graphics before, and just as badly (juxtaposing it with Christmas shopping, for example). This photo has been around for a long time, and the children in it are probably either adults now, or may even be dead.
Which brings up a question.
Just how moral is it for the creators of this and similar graphics to use a photo of starving children to bolster their own personal agendas?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Drop me a line...