A friend recently sent me a link to this exhibition and asked me what I thought of it, from an ethical and moral standpoint.
It’s an educational exhibit that presents actual human bodies with the various subsystems exposed. The twist that makes this unique, though, is that the bodies are presented ‘artistically’ in poses, and with facial expressions, that living people would have. It has a certain shock value, even just seeing it in flash animation.
The question is… Are there ethical problems with this? Is this wrong? Or does it simply not adhere to cultural norms, and therefore shock us, but in an morally benign way?
First, here are a few principles in play as I see it…
- There is nothing wrong with education about the human body nor with using human bodies in education per se. With physical death, the spirit departs the body.
- Human beings are the only earthly creature made in God’s image. This gives a human life special value, and makes a human being worthy of a dignity that is unique among creatures under heaven. This is why a deer head could be mounted as a trophy on a wall, but no one would ever consider mounting the head of a German soldier killed in WW II.
- There will be a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. This has been a primary motivator for Christians to insist on a proper burial for all deceased human beings.
- Death, being a result of the fall of mankind into sin, is unnatural and a jarring reminder that we live in a world that has gone wrong and in desperate need to be made right again.
To the degree that an educational exhibition gives glory to God for the wonder that is the human body, I think is a good thing. To the degree that an exhibition degrades the value of human life and dignity, I think it is a bad thing.
I believe that what our moral intuition is telling us about the impropriety of this exhibition is this…
Each body posed in a whimsical manner with a manufactured expression represents a human being created by God. It is not like a wax museum because the actual body of the departed person is on display. We normally do things like close the eyes of and cover a deceased person out of respect. To pose them in a silly way seems like just the opposite of respect.
In some way I think that posing a dead body in a way that we would normally only see a living person (complete with expression) makes light of the horror of death. Christians do not grieve as those without hope, but we grieve. Each body represented in that exhibition bears testimony to the ravages of sin and the grief of loss of loved ones. I think a display like this can desensitize us to the weight of that.
So, it’s not as cut and dried as some other ethical issues, and I’m open to further insight on it, but that’s my initial take on it.
Eric I thought it was valuable to see these bodies “in motion” if you will. The expressions are just another part of the muscular display.
In other words, it didn’t bother or offend me in anyway. I don’t think it was degrading, merely educational.
Yeah, it’s certainly a subjective thing. I’d be curious how others out there see it.
What if the next exhibit displays real aborted fetuses?
Juan, I’m all for it — as long as the exhibit notifies viewers of the content, displays facial expressions and body positions of excruciating pain, and gives extensive detail about the abortion process. I can see the gallery now, decorated in soft pastels with nursery rhymes playing in the background.
I would call it: Babies – The Exhibition
It’s been done with pictures.
On the original topic, I think it’s fine. The only questionable thing I have about it is that some of the bodies are “unclaimed” Chinese John Does.
If they were all donated to science then fine, but it’s weird to think that the body of someone’s loved one — who has no idea where it is — is being shipped around the world in an acclaimed art/science exhibit.
Hmmmm, here’s a thought. It is possible that one (or more) of the bodies could have been a persecuted saint that was tortured and killed by an oppressive communist government.
Other than that, I plan to go and take the kids for the “fearfully and wonderfully made” teaching moment.
My son saw the exhibit and he was impressed by the stark reality. The two part video on the website shows several people who claim a new respect and sensitivity to the human body. Good effect. I’m for it, too.
There also seems to be an argument for displaying exhibits of aborted fetuses, because it produces a “good” effect – that is, it helps people see the stark reality of abortion. But back to Eric’s question: is this ethically or morally correct, despite the good intentions?
By the way, I’m not against displaying images of aborted fetuses, but I’d be interested to hear different perspectives.
It may be too late (aging post), but what about the fact that they’re profiting from it (using real bodies), profit that they probably wouldn’t enjoy if they used synthetic materials. After all, there is some shock factor that is drawing people. It’s not complete to justify it by saying it’s “educational.” I think there’s much more to it than that. Chinese John Does are just a convenience. I imagine the person that stumbled onto this “art” and “educational” material had been doing this for a living, but realized he/she was sitting on a gold mine. The aborted fetuses is interesting, but I thought about hiring Anne Gedes to take the bodies and photograph them with sunflowers wrapped around the faces, complete with diapers and all. Where do you draw the line.
Eric, thank you for noodling this one and posting your comments!
Watching the videos on the exhibit’s website, I kept having the same thought:
A little information is a dangerous thing.
It’s subjective, of course, but I think this is what creeps me out about it: a person who sees the body dead, lifeless (though posed), and disassembled is in danger of thinking: “Wow… so that’s all there is.” A person who sees only the corpses may come to view the living in the same light.
On the other hand, a doctor, who understands not only the anatomy, but also the physiology, development, fragility, and pathologies of the human body (to say nothing of the psychology of the soul joined to the body), does not suffer from the “a little information” problem.
I also wonder about the way the exhibit interprets what’s on display: is it presented as a purposeless result of a series of evolutionary accidents? I doubt it’s presented as the handiwork of Almighty God.
It’s no black-and-white issue, but I see potential for harm in an insidious sort of way… not that the deceased are in any way being harmed or degraded — but rather, that the patrons of the exhibit are risking their own appreciation of human life.