The Ethicist: Map or Menace?

In the basement of my German grandmother's farmhouse, I found a large, framed map of her homeland. It is beautifully illustrated, with drawings of churches, castles and factories, coats of arms from various cities and a quotation from Goethe. It is, however, from 1937, a date that is prominently displayed. Although the map has no Third Reich iconography, Germany's borders greatly exceed its current ones. Is it ethical to hang it in my living room? ALEX HOYT, NEW YORK

This is probably not an ethical problem. It's closer to an issue over taste. But it has a moral component, so I'll answer it nonetheless.

There is nothing wrong with the map itself. Based solely on your description, it's a neutral artifact. Yet you clearly realize not all people will perceive it as such. In fact, I don't think you perceive it as neutral (otherwise you would not have written this letter). So the real question is this: Are you interested in prominently displaying art that will cause some people to think differently — and perhaps negatively — about who you actually are? Again, this is not an ethical query. But it's worth considering.

If I walked into your home and saw a massive portrait of 1937 Germany, I would not think, the guy living here must be some kind of obsessive Nazi fetishist. But some reasonable people might. And if that happens, you can't feign outrage over their subsequent response. It's clear that you're conscious of how this map might be taken. You can't argue, "I had no idea this might bother people." If you hang an upside-down cross on your front door, it doesn't really matter that an upside-down cross historically represents the symbolic memory of St. Peter — certain strangers will still assume you're a Satanist (or at least a massive fan of the first Black Sabbath album). If you deliberately present an image that is prone to misinterpretation, you have to accept the consequences.

Now, does that make hanging the image unethical? It does not. There's no ethical responsibility to avoid offending people who manufacture personal meanings. You can decorate the interior of your private residence in whatever manner you desire, and perhaps you don't care if other people misinterpret your aesthetics. Maybe you're actively looking for a provocative conversation starter, and this map will succeed in that context. But don't be surprised if you regret this decision.

MOVIE-NIGHT SWITCHEROO

I go to the movies often. Sometimes I'll see something that is terrible or too violent for my tastes. Is it O.K. to walk out and go into another movie? Or even ask for my money back? BLAINE GREENFIELD, BILTMORE LAKE, N.C.

In enormous multiplex cinemas, I see patrons doing this quite often, and I assume their logic is this: They feel as if they've paid for a movie, so it's up to them to decide which movie they see. This would be a justifiable argument if theaters sold tickets for three-hour blocks of time, but that's not how the world works. Buying a ticket does not award you 180 minutes inside the walls of the building (which you can use in whatever way you want). Your ticket gives you access to a specific movie in a specific location at a specific time. That's the transaction.

There's an assumed risk with subjective art. When you buy a ticket for an artistic event, there's no guarantee that you'll like it. You can't argue that the ticket buyer is owed a film experience that meets his or her personal criteria for quality entertainment, because the only guarantee is that the advertised movie will be screened at that place at that time. Your critical opinion does not dictate a refund. And by changing theaters, you're hurting the creators of the film you saw without directly paying for it. A film's box-office performance is obviously dictated by box-office sales. If you pay for a bad movie but end up watching a different one, you are rewarding the bad director while taking revenue from the director who made entertainment you liked, in that way incrementally perpetuating the likelihood that more bad movies will be made in the future.

THE NICOTINE PLOT

I have a noisy, thuggish neighbor who smokes. May I (anonymously) buy him cigarettes or other legal nicotine products, leaving him to poison himself like the rodent he is? Not out of malice, but as an act of self-defense. I have no other options: my life is being destroyed by the unrelenting noise. All other avenues have failed. I can't afford to move, and neither the law nor my landlord offers remedies. Buying someone cigarettes is legal, and it's clearly legal to poison oneself with cigarettes. May I help someone else along this path? A., CHICAGO

This is an amazing question. You're essentially asking, "Is it ethical for me to slowly and legally murder my unlikable neighbor?" I'm sorry to inform you that it is not. I appreciate your sinister moxie, but you can't give someone a gift if the only motive is that the gift will eventually cause him to die. Intentions matter. It would be acceptable to give him cigarettes as a peace offering, but not as a stealth poison (even if the result is the same either way). You may also be slightly confused over the amount of time it takes someone to smoke himself to death. Frank Sinatra lived to be 82.

E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.