This isn't a letter meant for us, it's not meant for anyone to read and I feel that publishing it is a little disrespectful.
In fact, I'd argue that it shows us true human nature, unfiltered and unedited. If we'd only allowed what was meant to be public, we'd be losing perspective as works meant to be public are carefully crafted for that purpose.
After I am dead, publish everything, correspondence, search history, location history, nude photos. I am dead, I cannot care.
Funerals aren't meant for the deceased, they allow the living to mourn and move on. It may be irrational fears, but living people often fear what's gonna happen to them after they die, and respect for people extends after they die for most people. Not for everyone, but this means that some will feel uncomfortable about sharing private stuff. And then there's also superstition.
Perhaps publishing everything is a step too far, but things like semi-private diaries from a war or a voyage --- intended for immediate family to read, but not for publication --- are often okay to publish within living memory of the deceased. Sufficiently chaste love letters seem to me to be okay after a long enough time has elapsed, too.
After he died, the entire erotic oevre of the artist William Turner was destroyed by his family on grounds of taste. If they were half as profound and amazing as his landscapes, then this was an act of profound desacration.
There are movies, music and books which the creators specifically withheld from the world. Who are we to determine otherwise. Again I see no issue in researchers combing over half-written books, discarded sheet music or personal notes. I just think we should be respectful and keep things that was deliberately hidden from the world private. If an author leaves a 90% finished book and say they don't want it published, having family or publishers to going ahead, finishing it or publishing it in its half-finished state anyway after the death or the author doesn't sit right with me.
That's not to say that something like Feynman letter to his wife isn't beautiful, it is, very much so. It was just not meant for us, it was meant for himself and a woman who would never read it.
I found it very beneficial to read recently so I'm grateful that his family chose to publish.
I enjoy "Letters of Note" and many of the most impactful letters are personal ones between private individuals.
One of my favorites is "Why explore space": https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/why-explore-space.
I'm very torn on this. As I said, I also enjoy reading things like this. But I always get the uncomfortable feeling that I'm reading someone's private diary without their consent.
For me, the basis for accepting the first proposition is that you buy in to self-determination as a value in and of itself, worth respecting not just because the person is around to stop you from doing whatever you want to them. In other words, if they ever had the right to say how they wanted to be treated, why do they lose that right after death?
As an example, if Bob one day told you that their name is now Alice, would you say "got, it Alice!" then go back to calling them Bob on the day they die? Why not? After all, what do they care, they're dead! To me, this sounds like a variation of the same argument against respecting someone's privacy after death, and bothers me for the same reason.
Of course, for immediate death, as others have noted, there are plenty of "stakeholders", family members, etc. who have direct interest in the wishes of the dead being upheld (not having their communications exposed, as others have noted). These needs must be considered, but eventually those grandchildren will also themselves pass, and those stakes will have also vanished.
Even for immediate death, the wishes of the dead can be invalid and ir-respected, such as in the case of a suicide bomber or a recently deceased captor/dictator.
On the flip side, for those dead (tens of) thousands of years, we engage in a practice known as archeology, that I think you would have a hard time arguing the opposite - the information we glean from their table scraps is too valuable to worry about their death wishes, assuming they had any.
In the great in-between, then, the question is, whose wishes matter more? Those of the deceased or those of the living. Usually, those of the living. And it is generally in our interest that we not disturb the dead too much, because at least we would like to live in a society that continues to grow, and does not need to disturb them (too much), respect our own wishes, etc. But ultimately, once it can be said it no longer harms any living, or any future living, then the desires of the living trump the desires of the deceased.
> You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets
Why are assets special? Why do you draw the line there? A more consistent position would be that we're free to ignore a decedent's last will and testament because they're dead and their wishes no longer matter. But if we believe in the importance in honoring someone's will, then I think we should honor any agreement or social norm that was in effect while they were alive.
If you think it's "too soon" then let's wait until his stuff gets dispersed hundreds of years after his death like has happened for every historical figure until recently. I'm sure 2236 historians will love it.