...that nobody ever died looking at stuff...or breathing...or we are in a world of trouble..
when a wreck becomes a gravesite?
- Thread starter Wendy
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Tim Ingersoll
Contributor
When I said that any artifacts associated with a skeleton or mortal remains should be off limits I meant rings, watches, boots, helmets and such. Thats just plain grave robbing. Taking other artifacts is okay with me.
Most of America is dying watching TV (IMHO)...but that's for another non-diving related thread...
- Messages
- 3,464
- Reaction score
- 5
How about when its done by a professional? Remember the CSS Hunley recovery recently? Some of the most exciting artifacts were personal items.
I do see your point and don't entirely disagree, just trying to see the line.
WW
Spectre
Contributor
If someone wanted to take my watch, clean it up, so my family and friends can see it and think of me, and perhaps have my watch become a piece of history....
... I wouldn't mind.
But that's just me, and I already know I'm a bit of a freak.
Never thought of it that way. The logic makes sense to me. I was one of the don't dive the Fitz guys primarily because i know some of the living relatives of those lost. It's an emotional issue for them yet today when Nov 10th comes around each year.
For that reason, if the Fitz was in my range, i wouldn't dive it, out of respect for the living. But IMO it is dangerous to most all wreck diving to set a precedent by banning diving on the Fitz. Next thing you know all wrecks with loss of life, regardless of how long ago they happened would be off limits.
We certainly don't want government making that decision for us since they would surely muck the whole thing up.
Soggy
Contributor
The problem with this issue is that ethics doesn't apply here. This is a situation dealing with emotion and religion, not reason. Because of this, there can never be a correct answer.
Consider a gravesite...Is there any real wrong done by digging up a body and taking a watch? I would, in my heart, say that it isn't right, but I cannot think of a concrete reason why. The owner is long dead and can no longer be harmed by "stealing" his watch. Religion brings in it's own issues, but no one will ever agree on those either.
Similarly, in a shipwreck. Let's say that I bring up a watch from a shipwreck. That watch once belonged to someone who has long been dead and decomposed. What moral/ethical (those two words are really synonyms and can be used interchangably) have I done? Have I harmed the family in any way? Possibly, but only in an irrational, emotional, "I don't feel that should be right" sort of way...and even then, this harm only occurs if that family finds out that I have taken the artifact.
Would I do this? Probably not...because I have that same inner emotional sense that tells me, "something's not quite right here," but it isn't based in reason...ethics are.
Obviously I am over-simplifying things here for the purpose of example, but I think my point is somewhat valid.
Consider a gravesite...Is there any real wrong done by digging up a body and taking a watch? I would, in my heart, say that it isn't right, but I cannot think of a concrete reason why. The owner is long dead and can no longer be harmed by "stealing" his watch. Religion brings in it's own issues, but no one will ever agree on those either.
Similarly, in a shipwreck. Let's say that I bring up a watch from a shipwreck. That watch once belonged to someone who has long been dead and decomposed. What moral/ethical (those two words are really synonyms and can be used interchangably) have I done? Have I harmed the family in any way? Possibly, but only in an irrational, emotional, "I don't feel that should be right" sort of way...and even then, this harm only occurs if that family finds out that I have taken the artifact.
Would I do this? Probably not...because I have that same inner emotional sense that tells me, "something's not quite right here," but it isn't based in reason...ethics are.
Obviously I am over-simplifying things here for the purpose of example, but I think my point is somewhat valid.
Soggy
Contributor
Didn't you watch Nightmare on Elm Street 3 where Freddy grabs the girl and smashes her head into the TV?
- Messages
- 3,464
- Reaction score
- 5
There certainly is some precedent for them doing so.
Actually the Fitz is a perfect example. A law was passed strictly on emotion by politicians sucking up for publicity and votes. It could happen anywhere to any wreck.
The only time I agree with the banning of diving on a wreck is when it's a designated memorial site, the USS Arizona comes to mind. I also support "no take" areas such as National Marine Sanctuaries or archaeological preserves set up on historically significant sites.
WW
...but that doesn't mean we can't argue about it...it never stopped us before
Similar threads
