| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Ethical Question Thread poster: Nepali_English
|
|---|
| Facts vs. Ethics | Jul 9, 2016 |
Kalyanasundar subramaniam wrote:
I agree to Mr. Balasubramanian's view. I am always a dispassionate translator and very well aware of my role as a translator. But I could not come to terms and be a party to factual errors, blatantly wrong assertions and incorrect facts. ( I am not talking about translator's bias or prejudice).
Following that logic, if you had been asked to translate propaganda in pre-genocide Rwanda that said "Tutsis are cockroaches" then you wouldn't have because Tutsis are not, in fact, cockroaches?
But you would have been ok with translating the "Leave the EU / No More Polish Vermin" cards passed out post-Brexit because the definition of vermin (according to Miriam-Webster) includes "very bad, unpleasant, or offensive people"? So the statement wasn't factually incorrect, and you therefore would have translated it?
| | | | | If you don't like the content or the style, don't | Jul 9, 2016 |
translate it. There must be some other jobs around if you run out of money.
| | | | Tina Vonhof (X)
Canada
Local time: 22:53
Dutch to English
+ ...
Bravo Kelly, I couldn't agree with you more.
| | | | Edward Potter 
Spain
Local time: 06:53
Member (2003)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Ethical decisions | Jul 9, 2016 |
I largely agree with Balasubramaniam L.'s analysis. However, there has to be a line where we stop translating and start informing authorities, for example when something illegal is going on.
Something I find distasteful or unethical often does not meet the conditions necessary for me to reject the work. How can we reject an idea if we don't know what it is? Let's put it out for all to see, and let the reader of the translation see what I saw.
There are plenty of distast... See more I largely agree with Balasubramaniam L.'s analysis. However, there has to be a line where we stop translating and start informing authorities, for example when something illegal is going on.
Something I find distasteful or unethical often does not meet the conditions necessary for me to reject the work. How can we reject an idea if we don't know what it is? Let's put it out for all to see, and let the reader of the translation see what I saw.
There are plenty of distasteful opinions out there. Let's translate them and hear what others have to say. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Maija Cirule
Latvia
Local time: 07:53
German to English
+ ...
Kelly Neudorfer wrote: Kalyanasundar subramaniam wrote:
I agree to Mr. Balasubramanian's view. I am always a dispassionate translator and very well aware of my role as a translator. But I could not come to terms and be a party to factual errors, blatantly wrong assertions and incorrect facts. ( I am not talking about translator's bias or prejudice). Following that logic, if you had been asked to translate propaganda in pre-genocide Rwanda that said "Tutsis are cockroaches" then you wouldn't have because Tutsis are not, in fact, cockroaches? But you would have been ok with translating the "Leave the EU / No More Polish Vermin" cards passed out post-Brexit because the definition of vermin (according to Miriam-Webster) includes "very bad, unpleasant, or offensive people"? So the statement wasn't factually incorrect, and you therefore would have translated it?
My thoughts exactly.
| | | | | Ethical question | Jul 9, 2016 |
Please note I have also said I would not translate blatantly wrong assertions. I would also draw your attention to my first post on this section,where I have stated about my refusal to continue the translation when I found passages with controversial statements. The client finally agreed to remove those sentences. If he had refused to do that,I would have come out of that project. My sentiments were respected by the client and the Translation agency.
| | | | | Evil happens when good people do nothing | Jul 9, 2016 |
I agree with Kelly.
I have translated a lot of things in my time that I do not entirely agree with. At one time I translated some speeches for a trade union leader with some views I was opposed to. However, she had thought out her arguments very carefully, and from her point of view, she was absolutely honest, and I accepted that she was entitled to her beliefs. I did my best for her - and later, when she changed her focus, I really respected her.
However, I have also t... See more I agree with Kelly.
I have translated a lot of things in my time that I do not entirely agree with. At one time I translated some speeches for a trade union leader with some views I was opposed to. However, she had thought out her arguments very carefully, and from her point of view, she was absolutely honest, and I accepted that she was entitled to her beliefs. I did my best for her - and later, when she changed her focus, I really respected her.
However, I have also turned down several translating jobs that went against my own beliefs, especially some about so-called alternative medicine, which were scientifically unfounded, and could harm sick people. At best they were intended to sell useless remedies and take people's money. I could not call myself a medical translator one day and translate this kind of thing the next.
Maybe someone else did do the translation, but I took a stand and warned the agency and some of my colleagues that I was unhappy with it.
As others have said, it is your decision. You have to decide whether the text falls inside the boundaries of freedom of speech or not. Consider what its purpose is, and whether you at least accept it.
Here you are obviously not happy, and you have found factual errors and feel disturbed by it. If I felt like that, I would tell the agency or the client that I was not the right translator for the job, and stop working on it.
I hope you soon find some work you are happy to do! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Angela Malik
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:53
German to English
+ ...
| Absolutely disagree with Balasubramaniam | Jul 9, 2016 |
Just no. If the content of a text turns out to be unethical, immoral and even illegal or DANGEROUS, there is no way I'm going to translate it. The argument that someone else will, so my refusal has done nothing is wrong. Let that other person have this burden on their head. I still have to be able to look myself in the face every morning and know that I have not been party to something horrible. THAT is the first something that my refusal has accomplished: my personal integrity has not been blem... See more Just no. If the content of a text turns out to be unethical, immoral and even illegal or DANGEROUS, there is no way I'm going to translate it. The argument that someone else will, so my refusal has done nothing is wrong. Let that other person have this burden on their head. I still have to be able to look myself in the face every morning and know that I have not been party to something horrible. THAT is the first something that my refusal has accomplished: my personal integrity has not been blemished.
The second thing my refusal accomplishes is the first rule that I feel every member of society has a duty to uphold: see something say something. If something is outright wrong, you don't ignore it and you certainly don't just join in on the basis that "someone else will if I don't". You say something, at the very least. By pointing out your misgivings, you are sending the message that at least one person does not find this immoral thing to be acceptable. Whether the message is received is another matter, but I feel it is my duty to send it regardless.
It may be that what I personally consider immoral or unethical or dangerous, others don't. Fine. Let them be responsible for their own decisions on the matter. But I still have to be accountable for my own.
My job might be to provide a service, but as the owner of my business, I have the right to refuse service. As a responsible human being, I have an obligation to refuse if a job goes against my ethics. And if I think I would not be able to do the job well because I find it so reprehensible, I have an obligation as a professional to refuse on that basis, too.
Balasubramaniam speaks of chemical reactions. Ultimately we are just an impartial part of the equation, he says. But we have the choice as to whether or not we are included in that formula and ultimately, the result of our work is that we help disseminate the information we translate by making it more accessible to wider audiences. If you would not hand out that text door to door because you can't possibly agree with the content of it, you shouldn't be translating it.
[Edited at 2016-07-09 19:22 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Don't compromise | Jul 9, 2016 |
Angela Rimmer wrote:
Let that other person have this burden on their head. I still have to be able to look myself in the face every morning and know that I have not been party to something horrible. THAT is the first something that my refusal has accomplished: my personal integrity has not been blemished.
I strongly agree with Angela's point. No money can replace the damage you're doing to your own integrity by participating in something you disagree with.
I refused jobs on ethical grounds a few times (once it was just a plain, completely belief-free commercial contract for an entity that promotes philosophies I disapprove of), and I never regretted. In each case, it was quite clear that the message of the text or the client's goals were inconsistent with my beliefs and also that my translation would just facilitate spreading it to an even wider audience. So my answer was a clear and resounding NO to anything like that.
Sometimes a damage you do to yourself starts with the little things, not just in translation, but generally in life. You make a small compromise here, a small one there, and in a few years you end up being in a place you would have hated initially, being a person you never wanted to be.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 10:23
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | More on professionalism | Jul 10, 2016 |
One of the key aspects of professionalism is objectivity, that is you perform the work on hand to the best of your ability and skills without bringing into consideration extraneous factors. Another key concept is to keep the interest of your client above your own.
What translators here seem to be finding so galling is the need in our profession to sometimes efface our own personality in order to do our job. But that is a situation that all professionals face.
The "ethic... See more One of the key aspects of professionalism is objectivity, that is you perform the work on hand to the best of your ability and skills without bringing into consideration extraneous factors. Another key concept is to keep the interest of your client above your own.
What translators here seem to be finding so galling is the need in our profession to sometimes efface our own personality in order to do our job. But that is a situation that all professionals face.
The "ethical confusion" expressed by many in this thread is merely due to not clearly understanding the distinction between the translator as a person and the translator as a professional. A true professional would keep these two strictly separate.
I could be a vegetarian ethically and morally (and I am) and can still translate (and do) non-vegetarian cusines and recipes. That does not put me in any moral or ethical dilemma, nor do I become a non-vegatarian just because I translate non-veg recipes. Similarly, translating padeophile literature would not make you a padeophile. Of course, you might not want to do it, that is another matter. But there is no ethical issue here. As others have said, it is a matter of comfort level, rather than an ethical or moral issue.
Some more examples from other professions:
Sport:
How would it be if a referee of a football match who is highly unsatisfied with the way the match is progressing chips in and slams a goal or two on behalf of the team he favours? A translator's role is similar to the role of the referee here. He/she can't take part in what he is translating. He/she has to remain a detached professional performing a technical service.
Science:
One of the most unethical thing that science has ever done is invent the atom bomb. Yet the scientists who invented it Bohr, Schrodinger, Einstein, et all, were highly moral people. They were fully aware of the immorality of their invention, yet that did not deter them from going ahead and contributing to the progress of science.
Bohr and Schrodinger were deeply influenced by the Vedas and sought moral guidance in their scientific work from these great Hindu scriptures. Einstein was a Jew and refugee from Nazi oppression. He, if any one, would have been keenly aware of morality issues.
Yet, they were able to calmly go about the invention of something that could bring about the end of mankind itself, and with it entire life as we know it today. They could do it because, being professionals, they went ahead with their work in a completely professional manner and did not attribute any moral value on the fruits of their work. It was for others to use their invention in whichever way they wanted, moral or otherwise. And from history we know, the invention has been put to both kinds of use.
So, even if we translate immoral stuff, that does not make us immoral, as we are only providing a technical service. How the product of our service is put to use, is none of our concern. There are other agencies to worry about that such as the police.
Of course, we shouldn't do anythind unlawful, but let us not take the law into our own hands, too.
[Edited at 2016-07-10 08:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jan Truper
Germany
Local time: 06:53
Member (2016)
English to German
| We are not tools | Jul 10, 2016 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The "ethical confusion" expressed by many in this thread is merely due to not clearly understanding the distinction between the translator as a person and the translator as a professional. A true professional would keep these two strictly separate.
[Edited at 2016-07-10 08:00 GMT]
The distinction you speak of does not exist.
You don't cease to be a person just because you get paid for something. You don't turn into a mindless, soulless tool, just because you get paid for something.
All your actions, in any capacitiy, are your actions as a human being. You can't turn that off; you can't deactivate your humanness.
I am not advocating that all "evil" texts should not get translated; it's a case by case decision. But this decision needs to be made -- case by case -- on the basis of being a human being, not a tool.
| | | | | On being human | Jul 10, 2016 |
Jan Truper wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The "ethical confusion" expressed by many in this thread is merely due to not clearly understanding the distinction between the translator as a person and the translator as a professional. A true professional would keep these two strictly separate.
The distinction you speak of does not exist. But this decision needs to be made -- case by case -- on the basis of being a human being, not a tool.
I second that. Any assumption of such difference, in the manner Balasubramaniam put it, automatically implies something I call metaphysical schizophrenia: as if the world we live in were completely extraneous to us, the humans that shape it, as if our actions had no impact, moreover, shouldn't even be assumed to have any impact on it.
| | |
|
|
|
| in a nutshell | Jul 10, 2016 |
In your opinion, Balasubramanium:
ethical = unprofessional ?
I couldn't disagree more.
At first I was relieved that in your second post you at least drew the line at unlawful activities (your last paragraph), but then I realized you contradicted yourself when you said it was ok to translate child pornography - I don't think there are many countries in the world where that is legal.
I'm not even going to get into the atomic bomb ex... See more In your opinion, Balasubramanium:
ethical = unprofessional ?
I couldn't disagree more.
At first I was relieved that in your second post you at least drew the line at unlawful activities (your last paragraph), but then I realized you contradicted yourself when you said it was ok to translate child pornography - I don't think there are many countries in the world where that is legal.
I'm not even going to get into the atomic bomb example because the analogy is flawed on so many levels. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Maija Cirule
Latvia
Local time: 07:53
German to English
+ ...
| Nothing personal, but, smoke and mirrors left out, | Jul 10, 2016 |
the main idea of Balasubramanium's comment is as old as the hills: "Pecunia non olet" or "Money doesn't stink", i.e., the main moral principle of hitmen or contract killers, burglars, human traffickers, etc.
| | | |
Maija Cirule wrote:
the main idea of Balasubramanium's comment is as old as the hills: "Pecunia non olet" or "Money doesn't stink", i.e., the main moral principle of hitmen or contract killers, burglars, human traffickers, etc.
Yeah, that's probably the category most translators see themselves in...
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Ethical Question | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
