Modelling ethics

The secret recipe developed by Ro Gale?
A bit on the spicy side in my opinion …

1 Like

I forget to say that I enjoy this hobby because of the technical marvel of these machines.

As I stated on this forums before, it is the reason that I build only vehicles with interior.

1 Like

This is well said!

Just getting off subject a wee bit. We all know that a proportion of Facelessbook and twitterverse is comprised of a very very very small minority of the population. Then why do so many bend the knee to them? Are people really sheep? Are politicians so dumb? No don’t answer that I already know the answer.

Will the woke brigade even notice our hobby?

bruce

2 Likes

Wow… A topic with so many layers and different ways to look at it.

Is it possible to engage in model building for reasons that others might find unethical? Hmmm? That would depend on the ethics of the person passing the ethical judgement. Some people might find the creation of any scale models of the tools and implements of war to be “unethical” and “an objectionable glorification of war, itself.” In that person’s view, there may be no “ethical” modeling efforts at all of any subjects related to war.

But, are some subjects inherently “unethical”? My answer to that would be a qualified, “no.” Speaking strictly to the nature of history and objective reality, the subject in question is ethically neutral. Things don’t have “ethics,” and the facts of the existence or occurrence of those things or events also don’t have inherent “ethics.”

Does that mean that there is no way that some modeling subject might be presented to highlight or emphasize aspects of that subject that others might find “unethical?” I’d also give a qualified “no.” There are surely some ways to present many subjects so that the unethical actions and behaviors of the historical figures involved are not shown to be just that, “unethical” or “immoral” in the opinions of many people who might view those works. Those people might very well judge the works modeled as “unethical” and the effort expended also “unethical.”

To be sure, one might judge the actions and behaviors of the people who - in the historical sense - engaged in those actions or behaviors according to one’s personal ethic. But the “things,” themselves, are neither “good” nor “bad.”

In this sense, then, the motives of the modeler who is building his or representation of those things or events are the only parts of this question that could be subject to ethical judgement. Could the modeler present the subject in an “ethically unacceptable” way? Again, the judgement of the viewer of the work is the only measure of what is or is not “ethically acceptable.”

Unfortunately, individual motives for each of us are just that… individual. While there may be a number of common themes and trends, such as, technical interests, aesthetics, historical significance, etc., those motives and interests combine in each person in unique ways, often with different emphasis and combinations with each other and other ancillary and related motives and interests.

Can someone (would someone?) judge that some other modeler’s interests are “unethical” based on just the subject modeled because that subject is associated with historical figures who acted and behaved in (what the person making the judgement considers) unethical or evil ways? What if the modeler’s interest and attraction to that subject is totally aesthetic? Is the judgement that the modeler is “unethical” valid? Who would decide?

Is the artist who paints a landscape of a volcanic eruption that destroyed villages and killed the inhabitants an “unethical” or “evil” person because he or she saw or perceived some sublime aesthetic beauty in the volcano?

In the end, only you can know what your attraction to any given modeling subject is, and only you can adjudge the ethics of your motives and interests. Your opinion about your own modeling is the only one that, in the ends, counts.

5 Likes

Just to throw in a different perspective.

The Australian War Memorial, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_War_Memorial , is regarded as one of the top ‘war memorials’ in the world. It attracts thousands of visitors. So I guess it could be regarded as a 1:1 scale representation of war. A huge model. Within that 1:1 model are many smaller dioramas. Are they ‘ethical’?
At the moment there is some controversy over the ALLEGED actions of some Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The Australian War Memorial decided to take action in regards to some of its Afghanistan displays in light of the allegations. But common sense prevailed. The displays were not ‘altered’ to to suit the ‘allegations’. Rather the displays remain as a recording of history. If those ‘allegations’ are proven to be true then we can’t whitewash them out of history. History is history. The good and the bad.

Modelling history by us, the war memorial or others needs to be done but in a respectful way. Based on the facts and not on a one sided ‘woke’ perspective.

3 Likes

Actions of “some soldiers” can always be a problem in the eyes of others.
Whether those actions were necessary or sanctioned is of greater importance. Regarding Afghanistan I refer to Rudyard Kiplings’s “The Young British Soldier”

“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!”

2 Likes

Only behaviors and actions are ethical or non-ethical based on their effects on others. Your modeling hobby has zero effect on anyone unless you choose to share it and even then, regardless of the subject (outside of a concentration camp etc as mentioned above) really doesn’t broach the philosophical discussion of ethics.

Representing an item from history from a study perspective is what I model, it’s an extension of what I care to read about, history particularly WW2 and just prior. A model is a 3d example for me. It’s pretty simple in my eyes in that respect.

My bachelor’s is in History and philosophy so this thread caught my attention but I think some people have gotten the concept of guilt and ethics confused. They aren’t one in the same. You don’t cross any line researching a time period or equipment etc, you only cross an ethical line when you end up actively supporting say genocide etc. But reading about the Warden SS isn’t unethical. Adopting the overall philosophy of Nazi Germany and starting down the path of hate crimes and racial bigotry cross that obvious boundary.

That’s my two cents, modeling ought to be guilt free, not bound by an ethical constraint. Your are merely moving your research from the printed to page to a 3d representation.

And for me the 'cancel culture’s is nonsense, a pet peeve of mine. A term invented by a slice of society when they cry about someone pointing out their bigotry or hate etc. I won’t hijack this thread in to politics but it’s akin to the mythical war on Christmas or the supposed war on heritage as many in the south claim (for those US Civil War buffs). If your heritage is slavery, rebellion and losing a war and that’s your definition of heritage you need a dictionary and some real history lessons. I’m sure that last bit will put a bee in a bonnet of many here but ‘cancel culture’ is invented as poor excuse to dry about dubious moral footing on a topic. Many equate it to PC but that is different.

3 Likes

While that’s all terrible, it pales in comparison vs committing genocide, eradication of cultures, stealing a continent, engaging in unnecessary wars, sometimes losing or winning and reaping the riches and benefits for generations, that’s also part of the overall heritage in our country. Many countries have ugly and horror in their past as well. As a peak at The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History’s 100 Worst Atrocities shows.

However, that ugly part of heritage doesn’t define who an individual is unless that person chooses to define themselves by heritage. We can make better decisions going forward if we want too.

Wink - Don’t stir up bees when you can directly toss a brick into a hornets nest.

1 Like

There is a French proverb:
Plus catholique que le Pape.
It is used in a few different situations and in english it means:
More catholic than the Pope.
Being the most zealous disciple of of them all, regardless of ideology or religion.
In any group driven by a belief, an ideology, a cause (good or bad), a religion or anything similar to those there will be a risk of some disciples taking it to extremes, trying to prove to the others that they are the most devout disciples of the belief et.c.
The cancel culture is probably one of the many beliefs et.c. that suffer from this syndrome.

2 Likes

Pretty much my standpoint technology not idiology.

On the issue of cancel culture, as some others have said… Its a bit tOpsy like… Keeps growing and growing… But its ultimately about honesty in remembering where we all came from as nations and cultures.
Commemorate and indeed celebrate the good, but recognise and be truthful about the bad and evil that men do in every culture. Accept that we are where we are as individuals, cultures, nations (for good or bad) because of ALL that has gone before.

3 Likes

About things, actions and people.


Used by a deranged gunman to shoot innocent citizens in a mall.

Used by a mall security guard to shoot a deranged gunman in a mall seconds before he opened fire.

Used by a police officer to shoot a mentally disabled and unarmed young man who behaved erratically and didn’t respond correctly to orders shouted by the officer.

Used by one of our courageous patriotic heros to terminate illegal immigrants at the border

Used by X Y to kill 15 fellow students and three teachers at his high school

Used by a school security guard to shoot X Y when X Y was reloading after shooting three staff members and 15 other students

Used by the father of a young child to shoot a rattlesnake that had entered the childs bedroom

Which gun is unethical? It’s all in the context and the presentation

7 Likes

Cancel Culture goes beyond spotlighting people’s bigotry and hate. Recent examples of Cancel Culture: Dianne Feinstein hugged Lindsey Graham after a senate hearing, and the Left went crazy and increased their demands she resign; New York Times senior editor Bennett resigns after leftist backlash for letting Tom Cotton, a sitting United States Senator, pen an opinion piece.

You may want to read deeper into your history books. As for the Civil War, both sides of my family came to America afterwards. I do not have a ancestral dog in the fight. The argument whether secession was over States rights or slavery, I’m convinced that it was ultimately about slavery, as demonstrated by Mississippi’s Declaration of succession. Yet, the Constitution allows states to depart from the Union for their reasons if they believe being in the Union is not beneficial to their state. I’ve read the various arguments pro and con whether the South was correct in secession, i.e., tarrifs, etc. I also recall that the majority of the United States tax revenue came from the south and the cotton crop, so when the South seceded, Washington DC could not pay for itself. Surviving journals, Diaries, letters, Etc, show that many Southerners who were personally against slavery chose the fight for the South because they thought that the north was being tyrannical and a lot of Northerners chose to fight for the south for the same reason. Lot of Southerners fought for the north because they did not believe in slavery and/or the secession. The book General Lee’s Army by Joseph T. Glatthaar deeply researched diaries and letters Etc that show that many Southerners supported the Confederacy because they believed the north was being tyrannical and they believed that their cause was akin to their their ancestors who fought against the British less than a hundred years earlier. My in-laws, some of their direct ancestors were Overmountain Men; both sides of my in-law families had ancestors who fought for the Union and ancestors who fought for the South. There’s one or two documents surviving that apparently do not mention fighting for the South for the cause of slavery. Ultimately, if the South thought they were fighting for states rights, they picked an immoral hill to die fighting on.

By the way, a case of Cancel Culture from yesterday. There’s a series of local history books and while I was in Walgreens yesterday, they removed the book Tennessee’s Confederates from the shelves. Hmmmm, banning books? While this region was predominately pro-union, it also had a lot of Confederates. On principle, I told the sales lady that I wanted to buy a copy of the book. She tried to ring it up and it was blocked - Walgreens does not even allow them to sell it. The Cancel Culture is real.

1 Like

If they erase all things that remind them of slavery… they lose all basis being upset over its existence.
Slavery.?.. What slavery?
Notice how no concern is wasted over such practices currently ongoing around the world?
Same with womens rights and gay rights.

3 Likes

This is getting way off subject. But here goes.
A certain proportion of the population want everyone to go green. That involves buying ship loads of solar panels from a certain large Asian country. Many reports now confirm that those panels are made with the help of ‘slave’ labour. Silence.

The ‘modern tactic’ is now not only to cancel culture/history but to silence any view that doesn’t suit the agenda. Here in Australia universities were shutting down all opinions from the right. The government, who funds most of them, has stepped in and instructed them to return to diversity of opinions.

So back to the subject. Does the cancel culture now have the ‘right’ to determine what AFV we can build? Should only those from Russia or China now be ‘ok’ but no ‘evil’ western AFV’s? So what about kits that represent Communist China troops or those of the Nationalist troops? Or heaven forbid any South African models because the have a racial history.

This thread has been an interesting read. Biased but interesting. I say biased simply because those here are interested in AFV and therefore a biased audience. I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m interested in the challenge of making something out of all those small parts that some sadistic b@#$% made just to torment me. The subject matter is less interesting that the challenge. I’ll paint my US Army bulldozer a nice shade of pink and hope I don’t offend anyone.

bruce

3 Likes

GO FOR IT!!
image

image

1 Like

I don’t think any of the cancellers know about this hobby, so I don’t think we have to worry.

Keep modeling along

1 Like

Robin try this link. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/roy-hill-hancock-ge-bring-two-pink-trucks-port-hedland/
Australia’s riches woman. Very anti climate/woke/ PC woman. She is a realist.

By the way I want Tacom, Meng, RFM or such to release one of those mining trucks. I can use it in my garden.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pink+miining+trucks&atb=v258-1&iax=images&ia=images

bruce

1 Like

I can’t think of a better color for a bulldozer. After all, pink was (is) a power color in he 1990s… :laughing:

Pink asserts dominance (all Canadian LAVs in Latvia will soon be repainted in CARC Pink)