Exactly! Re:Objective standards:John Donne:No Man Is An Island:Beautiful Summer

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

EEvans, et. al.

Exactly!  It is ridiculous to pass laws governing whether men or women 
should wear blue or pink dresses or pants etc., though cultural norms on 
this issue can vary tremendously.  In some areas of the USA if a man wears a 
pink dress in public his health will be in jeopardy!!  The "objective" wrong 
comes in the passing of a law criminalizing behavior that should not be 
legislated and especially not in a discriminatory manner.  Cultural norms 
regarding women going topless are various.  In New York State, it is legal 
for women to go topless anywhere men are allowed to do so.  It does not 
appear to be a major problem, and most women are reasonable about when and 
where they use this privilege.  The standards regarding topless women are 
not objective ethical standards like laws regarding theft or murder.  Can 
you imagine any state government in the USA that legalized theft and murder? 
  These issues are a matter of objective ethical standards for almost 
everyone with little debate.  Topless women is not like these issues, it is 
clear.

It is obvious the debate is ongoing.  A rally is scheduled for this Saturday 
focusing on Women's Rights in part inspired by the new Moscow nudity 
ordinance.  There are many people who do not think topless women are a 
matter of subjective taste, but that it should be outlawed, who think that 
women going topless are an objective ethical affront to ethical laws derived 
from their "objective" codes of ethics.

I assume if you reply to these posts on vision2020 to say the debate is 
somehow frivolous or that you want to know why you should get involved that 
in some manner you are involved.  Otherwise why bother to respond to my post 
on "culturally relative norms?"  Did you respond just to say you don't want 
to debate or be involved?  Certainly you are not saying there is no debate 
in Moscow regarding these issues?

At any rate, thanks for your reply, even if you think it a silly waste of 
time!  Perhaps someone else is reading these "public" postings.

Ted


>From: eevans@moscow.com
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Objective standards: Enjoy The Beautiful Summer Weather!
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:15:09 GMT
>
> > EEvans:
> >
> > Do you approve of the nudity ordinance just passed by the Moscow city
> > council?  If so, do you think it involves legislating culturally 
>relative
> > norms?  Why or why not?  You responded to the statement I made in a post 
>on
> > vision2020 that the new Moscow nudity ordinance was just legislating
> > culturally relative norms.  Now you ask why should anyone listen to my
> > reasons?   You are listening enough to reply, so why don't you answer 
>that
> > question?
> >
>See below.
>
> > You are merely making abstract philosophically based objections to the
> > logical difficulties ANYONE will have (including you!) who tries to 
>PROVE
> > their ethics are correct and someone else's differing ethics are false.
> >
> > I never stated I think it impossible to have objective standards across 
>all
> > times and cultures.  I merely pointed out that with SOME cultural norms, 
>a
> > good case can be made that they are relative and subjective.  You don't
> > think there are objective standards across all cultures and times that
> > command whether women wear pink or blue dresses, or whether men wear 
>pink or
> > blue shirts, or do you?  I think the issue of topless women is like 
>these
> > examples.  It is a culturally relative norm,
>
>What you're saying is our law which allows men, and not women, to go 
>topless is
>not *objectively* wrong.
>
> > and yes, I do disagree with
> > people who think the ordinance does not have inconsistencies.  What 
>makes me
> > right and others wrong?  If you would explain why my logic is incorrect 
>on
> > this issue, we could have a debate on this matter.  Perhaps I AM WRONG!
>
>I don't understand why you want to debate about it. If I read you 
>correctly,
>you think arguing about toplessness is like arguing blue vs. pink dresses. 
>I
>don't want to be inflamitory, so forgive me if it comes off that way. Why 
>do
>you want to debate about something which you think is subjective? On an 
>issue
>where there is no right or wrong, why do you argue that you are right and 
>they
>are wrong? And to answer your question above, why should I get involved in 
>it?
>
><snip>
>
>Thanks for continuing this discussion.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Ed Evans
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx