Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done.
"Nothing worth doing is worth doing less than 100%"
The two sentences above are not interchangeable with each other, so instead of insulting me, how about you just clarify your position with words that actually mean what you think? I don't know you, and am not telepathic, so the best way to put across your position is to actually explain your point of view clearly.
"If you have to question the morality of an action, it's wrong" and "You should always try your hardest and believe in what you do" do not mean the same thing.
Stuff like this shouldn't be made, it's not art for the sake of art, or political, it's overt sexualisation and desensitising, hopping on the bandwagon of liberals who are literally too fucking stupid to realise the difference to support and promote; and on sideliners who create discussion over whether it's right/wrong.
So how does this gel with your belief that people are free to responsibly do what they want provided they are fully behind their own actions? Is the harm that this diorama is causing to society enough to overwrite the freedom of expression of the creator? Given the obvious time and effort that has been spent on this piece, then I can only assume the creator 100% thought he was doing something right.
Of course what some people believe is "right" is different for others; because societies fucked and people don't do their jobs, either teachers, parents or social peers.
So... again, not sure if this is exactly what you mean, but this sentence implies that if a person has a different opinion to someone else about what is "right" then that means there's a problem with one or the other's point of view? As opposed to simply being the default condition of the human race, and both opinions being equally useful? I mean, to use your Snowden example, you say you disagree with his decision, but it was his decision to make. Are either of you wrong, or do you just have two different opinions which are both equally valid? If Snowden is wrong, then why?