This test has only one question, but it's a very important one.
Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.
You're in Zimbabwe... near Kariba, to be exact. There is great chaos going on around you, caused by an unpredicted hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all about you. You are a Daily News photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the Zambezi River as it roars through the gorge. Nature is showing all its destructive power and is ripping everything away with it.
Suddenly you see a man in the water - he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is... it's Robert Mugabe! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever.
You have two options and no time to lose. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. You can't do both. So, you can save the life of Robert Mugabe... or you can shoot a prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most notorious leaders.
And here's the question - please give an honest answer:
Would you select colour film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?
Walker
Wouldn't leaving him to die go against your religious beliefs?
PS. I'd select black and white.
Liz
First, I'd save his life (I couldn't let anyone die, be it a ruthless dictator or anyone), then take him to the London Dungeon.
On a more serious note, I think his life should be saved, but he should be sent off to work in a salt mine or to live in an isolated island and never ever let him come to power again. But letting anyone die just because you want to take a probably prize-winning photo...well, it's something I'd rather not qualify, no matter who Mugabe is. I'd surely be carrying the weight on my back until the day I die.
If a photo was taken, I'd select black and white, too. Although I wouldn't have the nerve to take a photo, I imagine the whole event as a series of pictures or as a film, and I clearly see it as black and white.
PS: The whole thing is just a figment of my imagination - I can't guarantee that I would react the way I described. I might be paralised with fear and astonishment, thus I wouldn't be able to do anything. Or, even worse, I might take the photo...who knows. Some people lose their senses in critical situations...I don't know which type I am as I have never had the misfortune to witness a natural catastrophy.
In my opinion, such tests/questions don't really make sense since you can only anticipate at best what you would do. The real test would be you being there on the spot, left to your own devices, but not this sort of speculation under laboratory conditions.
That said, I'm terribly curious about what kind of behaviour is considered moral or amoral according to this test or in your book, André. Not that I would change my mind whatever the results are.
André in Zuid-Afrika
OK, both of you made the mistake of taking the "question" literally.
The real question here, which this piece comments on, is whether Mugabe should be allowed to continue to do what he is doing now.
The river coming down in flood, is actually his policies in Zimbabwe... the country he is succeeding so well in destroying.... Rescuing him in this context, refers to rescuing him as president of Zimbabwe (helping him to stay on).
Liz
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
OK, both of you made the mistake of taking the "question" literally.
Well, then it's not a question of morality but the question of thinking in metaphores. Do not expect me to get your drift if it's the middle of the night, I'm writing an essay on the cultural and sociopolitical context of In-Yer-Face Theatre, I'm totally knackered and obviously in a "piss-off-and-leave-me-alone" mood. (No one forced me to answer your question, though. )
However, I still think the test is basically fallacious - with or without the photo-taking bit. What's the function of that? I don't know how others feel but the story of taking a photo of a dying man whilst letting him die reminds me of those sensationalist reporters who are preoccupied with taking photos and recording everything that is happening, but at the same time they ignore the poor victims around them. This test falls into its own trap, I'm afraid.
André in Zuid-Afrika
Liz wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
OK, both of you made the mistake of taking the "question" literally.
Well, then it's not a question of morality but the question of thinking in metaphores. Do not expect me to get your drift if it's the middle of the night, I'm writing an essay on the cultural and sociopolitical context of In-Yer-Face Theatre, I'm totally knackered and obviously in a "piss-off-and-leave-me-alone" mood. (No one forced me to answer your question, though. )
However, I still think the test is basically fallacious - with or without the photo-taking bit. What's the function of that? I don't know how others feel but the story of taking a photo of a dying man whilst letting him die reminds me of those sensationalist reporters who are preoccupied with taking photos and recording everything that is happening, but at the same time they ignore the poor victims around them. This test falls into its own trap, I'm afraid.
The "morality" refers to the morality (or lack thereof) of the SA government in keeping Mugabe in power while his country is collapsing. The photo-taking bit is about it being time to document the story of the end of one of Africa's most evil dictators ever.
Remember that Zimbabwe currently is South Africa's Iraq - to help you understand the context of this for us.
Liz
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Remember that Zimbabwe currently is South Africa's Iraq - to help you understand the context of this for us.
I know, I know, but still...okay...
André in Zuid-Afrika
Liz wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Remember that Zimbabwe currently is South Africa's Iraq - to help you understand the context of this for us.
I know, I know, but still...okay...
Jeez, you're a difficult woman when you're writing essays on the cultural and sociopolitical context of In-Yer-Face Theatre.
Liz
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Jeez, you're a difficult woman when you're writing essays on the cultural and sociopolitical context of In-Yer-Face Theatre.
Is it any wonder...?
André in Zuid-Afrika
Liz wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Jeez, you're a difficult woman when you're writing essays on the cultural and sociopolitical context of In-Yer-Face Theatre.
Is it any wonder...?
Yep, can't say I blame you!
André in Zuid-Afrika
Deborah
I see that when you first posted this question of morality (in antimoonbis, the langcafe prototype), at least some of us got the point of the question!
André in Zuid-Afrika
Deborah wrote:
I see that when you first posted this question of morality (in antimoonbis, the langcafe prototype), at least some of us got the point of the question!
True, true!
Walker
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
OK, both of you made the mistake of taking the "question" literally.
The real question here, which this piece comments on, is whether Mugabe should be allowed to continue to do what he is doing now.
The river coming down in flood, is actually his policies in Zimbabwe... the country he is succeeding so well in destroying.... Rescuing him in this context, refers to rescuing him as president of Zimbabwe (helping him to stay on).
No, the question was clear: save him or don't save him and take a picture of him when he's about to meet his Maker. But let's say you're right -- should Mugabe be allowed to continue to do what he's doing now? Obviously not. Who in his right mind would help him to stay on? What kind of answers were you expecting anyway?
Deborah
Quote:
You have two options and no time to lose. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. You can't do both. So, you can save the life of Robert Mugabe... or you can shoot a prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most notorious leaders.
And here's the question - please give an honest answer:
Would you select colour film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?
I think it's quite clear that the choice of saving or taking a picture of Mugabe is presented as a statement, and that the actual question concerns
your choice of color or B&W film, implying that you have made the decision to go with getting a good picture.
Walker
Deborah wrote:
Quote:
You have two options and no time to lose. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. You can't do both. So, you can save the life of Robert Mugabe... or you can shoot a prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most notorious leaders.
And here's the question - please give an honest answer:
Would you select colour film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?
I think it's quite clear that the choice of saving or taking a picture of Mugabe is presented as a statement, and that the actual question concerns
your choice of color or B&W film, implying that you have made the decision to go with getting a good picture.
OK. But how can one make such a statement? What if I wanted to save/help Mugabe? If that were the case it could be impossible to answer the question.
Deborah
Walker wrote:
OK. But how can one make such a statement? What if I wanted to save/help Mugabe? If that were the case it could be impossible to answer the question.
It's not meant to be answered! It's a comment on how the author feels about Mugabe!! It's a joke!!!
Walker
Deborah wrote:
Walker wrote:
OK. But how can one make such a statement? What if I wanted to save/help Mugabe? If that were the case it could be impossible to answer the question.
It's not meant to be answered! It's a comment on how the author feels about Mugabe!! It's a joke!!!
What a weird question, or rather, "question". Then why not just say "I don't like Mugabe and what he's doing to Zimbabwe. What do you think about it?"?
Deborah
Walker wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Walker wrote:
OK. But how can one make such a statement? What if I wanted to save/help Mugabe? If that were the case it could be impossible to answer the question.
It's not meant to be answered! It's a comment on how the author feels about Mugabe!! It's a joke!!!
What a weird question, or rather, "question". Then why not just say "I don't like Mugabe and what he's doing to Zimbabwe. What do you think about it?"?
It's a f*****g joke!!! I imagine your response to this well-known lawyer joke...
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
A: One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is a catfish.
...would be "Why don't you just say that you think lawyers don't have a highly developed moral sense?" (Or are you putting me on? Are you 'avin' a laugh?)
Walker
Deborah wrote:
Walker wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Walker wrote:
OK. But how can one make such a statement? What if I wanted to save/help Mugabe? If that were the case it could be impossible to answer the question.
It's not meant to be answered! It's a comment on how the author feels about Mugabe!! It's a joke!!!
What a weird question, or rather, "question". Then why not just say "I don't like Mugabe and what he's doing to Zimbabwe. What do you think about it?"?
It's a f*****g joke!!! I imagine your response to this well-known lawyer joke...
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
A: One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder, and the other is a catfish.
...would be "Why don't you just say that you think lawyers don't have a highly developed moral sense?" (Or are you putting me on? Are you 'avin' a laugh?)
I guess I was. I didn't think it was very appropriate to make jokes about such a serious matter as Mugabe and Zimbabwe, even though it was meant to criticize the cause of what is bad i.e. Mugabe. A guy in my former dorm used to make jokes about Hitler but I was never able to respond to those jokes.
Loic
Mugabe is a massive disappointment to his country. To think Zimbabwe pinned such high hopes on him when he first won independence for what was essentially southern Rhodesia anyway.
We should impose a sporting, economic and cultural boycott on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe should be suspended from Test cricket for good. They say that politics and sport do not mix, but it was rather effective in coercing apartheid South Africa to change her mind, wasn't it?
(No one forced me to answer your question, though. 
