Should you watch a tiger mauling a man – or a live-streamed execution? We asked an ethicist

In recent times, accessing images of people being harmed, maimed and killed has become increasingly easy. Two notable cases have highlighted the issue of sharing graphic footage of deaths. One involves a UK man being mauled to death by a tiger at a wildlife park in Yorkshire, while the other concerns the US Defense Department's plan to live-stream the execution of Nidal Hassan, a soldier who killed 13 unarmed soldiers in 2009.

Ethicists often argue that tech platforms and news media should refrain from sharing such graphic footage. However, the question remains: do we, as individuals, have a responsibility not to watch or share this type of content?

There are two primary ethical concerns when broadcasting such material: harms and dignity. Both affect media networks and platforms, as well as individuals. Research shows that viewing graphic and violent content can lead to various negative consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder, emotional distress, and increased aggressive behavior, especially among children. Moreover, treating violent deaths as mere spectacle can undermine virtues like compassion, essential for our overall well-being.

The people featured in such footage also suffer from privacy violations and a diminished sense of dignity when graphic footage of their deaths is shared. Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant believed in the intrinsic worth and dignity of every human being, and using a person's death as public spectacle violates their rights and dignity by treating them as a means to an end.

Even watching the footage out of morbid curiosity disregards the individual's right to privacy or their likely wishes regarding the sharing of such content.

Some may argue that there are reasons to watch such footage. Bearing witness could be one such reason, like sharing images of survivors from concentration camps at the end of World War II. However, this does not apply to the tiger or the US execution cases. Another consideration might be legitimizing transparency and oversight when the state carries out unpleasant actions, including executions. However, this argument does not hold for the tiger footage or the live-streamed execution.

Lastly, viewing such footage might prevent future crimes by others. While this does not apply to the aforementioned cases, it could in the execution scenario. Still, the evidence supporting this argument is limited. In today's high-tech world, where platforms are often lightly regulated, it is up to us to make these decisions. Our individual choices can have a significant impact on both ourselves and others.

It is crucial to pause and consider what we would want if our deaths were being filmed, as well as the effects watching such footage can have on our own dignity and privacy.