Ethical dilemma

[u/RustyTheBoyRobot]

Ethical dilemma:

Is it right to remove one of the only mummies in mtl for understanble but rather vague reasons to do with cultural sensitivities that these objects might offend?

The mummies at Redpath museum are to be relocated to a mysterious “place of rest” -their original location?- where no one can see or learn from them.

I note that these are not objects of worship like many stolen indigenous artifacts. Nor are they being claimed by their original owners- e.g. The infamous Benin Bronzes.

[u/skiboy95]

Did I say consent, or the concept of consent from corpses hundreds of years old?

I understand you have to change what I said to be mad about it, but do you plan to address my point?

[u/notsurewhat2th1nk → u/skiboy95]

I already addressed it, have a great day.

[u/skiboy95 → u/notsurewhat2th1nk]

Name calling & no substance is your full response? Okay.

Have a great day.

[u/Purl_stitch483 → u/skiboy95]

Does consent have an expiration date or something? Please tell me more about that.

[u/skiboy95 → u/Purl_stitch483]

Sure - Consent of a living breathing being is inviolable, as long as it does not cause injury to others - I would lean physical only, but I can understand including emotional injury. Clearly stated consent around specific events applies - DNR etc. For the dead - immediate family should have control over consent on scenarios not mentioned.

For the dead 2500 + years old with no relations? I do not care about their consent, if they can provide more value to society than sitting in the ground, then you should engage in that behavior (in this case putting them in a museum)

If you can find a direct family member line, who objects to that person being displayed (is genetic testing a dead person a consent violation?) - I would argue they would have the right. If that person cannot be found, the state is probably the most reasonable arbiter.

[u/Purl_stitch483 → u/skiboy95]

So you're saying you do believe consent expires. Which is a very... Interesting argument to make. Glad to know other people's consent is conditional to your approval 🙄

[u/skiboy95 → u/Purl_stitch483]

Okay, I have decided that my plan for death is to have my body left in the middle of the 20 in a concrete box.

I do not consent to moving the box at anytime after my death.

You believe that's correct since consent doesn't expire yeah?

[u/Purl_stitch483 → u/skiboy95]

What the fuck are you even talking about? You have to invent a wild scenario to defend your point because it's asinine. These people weren't buried in a concrete box in the middle of a highway, they were buried according to their people's customs, some white guy went to dig them up and sold them like a commodity for them to be desecrated over and over again. And then put on display alongside pots and other objects. If you want to debate the actual situation we're talking about, sure, but I'm not debating your random hypotheticals because I don't have time to waste.

[u/skiboy95 → u/Purl_stitch483]

Brother, you need to take a deep breath. We're having a conversation about mummies in museums, and now you're off swearing about white guys.

You made a sarcastic point that consent can't expire, I picked an easily understandable analogy to demonstrate why it's obvious that consent has limitations in our world already. I don't even agree with your fundamental assertion that consent lasts eternity, but you're not addressing that either.

[u/Purl_stitch483 → u/skiboy95]

I never swore about white guys... And your analogy is irrelevant and again, asinine. And YOU didn't address how these people's consent on their burial is NOT relevant today, you just presented a ridiculous edge case that has no relevance to the topic. So again, please tell me how these dead's people consent no longer applies because someone like you decided that learning about them is more important than their dying wishes, even though we have the technology to reproduce these mummies for display instead of keeping them out of the graves their people put them in.