• http://gravatar.com/padthemadlad Patrick

    Nice. I loved the exhibition and, like you, left with an increased appreciation for my body and a motivation to pay more attention to the contours of its subjective experience. So based on the anecdote of my own experience, I think my attendance had virtuous effects and the exhibition is a morally good thing. It really depends on how the individual makes meaning of it, of course.

  • http://twitter.com/blamer @blamer

    If something offends you, it’s difficult to see why anyone else should care – unless, of course, they care about minimising the harms you might suffer.

    Like taste, there’s no accounting for psychological discomfort.

    Psychopaths aside, plenty of humans evidently do care very much about the feelings of those who’re personally offended by this exhibit. So too those harmed by blasphemy.

    I think because we tend to reflexively think of “that which is” and “those whom it offends” using our preferred language of morality. Gut instincts, christian fables, pop psychology. Rarely imbued with the liberal nuances preferred by today’s ethicists, social scientists, etc.

    This moralizing the the OP quotes –berating the exhibit and its supporters– is utterly predictable. Quick thinkers are verbalising that Body Worlds isn’t fine, essentially because those feelings of offence are “bad”. Evidently that rhetoric is highly understandable and agreeable. Albeit misleading.

    Leaving us slow thinkers to rather toothlessly point out that their moralizing hasn’t persuade us that our more permissive view of BW is inferior to the less permissible view.