I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you, because it's hard to make any argument given with how you frame the question. What does it mean that the deceased Feynman has rights? In life, it would be illegal (in America) for a hospital to disclose that he once came in for a flu shot. But it is completely legal to get a coroners report which explains the cause of death and all other related medical details. It doesn't make sense to discuss "rights" because Feynman as an alive human is not the same as Feynman dead.
I know you're not talking about legal matters, but some of the issues behind libel and speech law are derived in part from moral concerns.
As a side note, it's not all together clear that it would be illegal to publish something like this were he still alive, as he would be considered a person of public interest.
Now, the issue of whether it's bad? That's strictly a taste thing. Had the author of e biography chosen to publish any and all seedy letters found in Feynman's private collection, I think we could agree that that is "bad", as in, bad taste...but I think the case could be made that the publishing of this type of personal letter is not in that same category, in terms of taste
I know you're not talking about legal matters, but some of the issues behind libel and speech law are derived in part from moral concerns.
As a side note, it's not all together clear that it would be illegal to publish something like this were he still alive, as he would be considered a person of public interest.
Now, the issue of whether it's bad? That's strictly a taste thing. Had the author of e biography chosen to publish any and all seedy letters found in Feynman's private collection, I think we could agree that that is "bad", as in, bad taste...but I think the case could be made that the publishing of this type of personal letter is not in that same category, in terms of taste