Legal Nudist Colonies Prove Relative Values Claim: Re: Law Is Objectively Wrong:

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

EEvans et, al.

Your question could be posed regarding any ethical standard or law when it 
is compared to a differing standard or law.  And these sorts of questions 
are difficult to answer.  Some of the greatest thinkers in history have 
concluded there is no way to prove any ethical standards to be absolute and 
objective.
But back to the real world of the USA in 2002.

If we take the US Constitution, its amendments, and The Bill of Rights as a 
starting point for "objective ethics,"  an assumption that is of course 
questionable, there are rules indicating equal treatment for citizens under 
the law.  Therefore the nudity ordinance should have applied to the nipples 
of both sexes.  This is one reason why it is "objectively wrong."  I have 
others that I won't explain.  My posts to vision2020 are too long.  Of 
course this interpretation of equal treatment under the law can itself be 
questioned by defining women's breasts a certain way.

My version of a nudity law would first treat the sexes equally under the 
law, which does not mean the sexes must be defined as "the same" or 
identical.  This would render it "objective" according the above 
interpretation of the US Constitution.  "Covering the genitals of both sexes 
in public unless in a place designated for total nude activity" would be a 
very simple and provisional nudity law that is equal between the sexes.  I 
am not inclined to advocate nudity laws, but rather to rely on the common 
sense of citizens, which I know is a idealistic notion.  But in some 
countries in the world it works!  So it is not an untried idea.

I'm afraid that nudity laws do not lend themselves to easy definitions of 
ethical absolutes, like laws regarding theft, murder, rape, assault, 
battery, etc., where there is no disagreement over the wrong being done, 
just discussions about the details around the edges.  Many people in the USA 
engage in full nudity in special settings with children and families, and it 
is hard to argue some social harm is being done by these people.  In fact 
there is evidence that nudist colonies have less sexual harassment and 
related problems than among the general population.  Of course a nudist 
colony is a specially selected group of people who do not represent the 
general population.  But can you imagine a murder, rape or theft colony who 
believe in practicing these lifestyles?  It would not be allowed if 
discovered!  The fact that the laws allow nudist colonies is a clear 
demonstration that the law recognizes that nudity may not be such a bad 
thing, and is a matter of taste, a (here we go again) "relativistic cultural 
norm!!!!!!!"

Ted


>From: eevans@moscow.com
>To: eevans@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re:  Law Is Objectively Wrong: Topless Women Are Not!  Re: 
>Objective standards
>Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:26:09 GMT
>
> >
> > EEVans, et. al.
> >
> > I am saying the ordinance banning topless women and not men IS 
>objectively
> > wrong for several reasons.  I am saying the simple act of a women being
> > topless in public is NOT objectively wrong.  I think the new nudity
> > ordinance is just as silly an overreaching of government power as an
> > ordinance that would ban men wearing pink dresses at the city park.
>
>I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong: You're
>position is that the current ordinance is objectively wrong because it 
>enforces
>a certain relativistic cultural norm (hereafter known as RCN)?
>
>I imagine you've got a good idea of what a proper nudity ordinance would 
>look
>like. Why is your version objectively right, and not just an enforcement of
>another RCN?
>
><snip>
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Ed Evans
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com