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

[eevans@moscow.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."
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
> 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!!!!!!!"

So this is your framework:
<The law> is right because it is consistent with my interpretation of <some 
document>, which is a starting point for objective ethics. Also, <some group of 
people> exist under it with no harm as defined by the opinion of myself and 
<some group of people>.

Understand then, that many people who think the nudity ordinance will work as 
it now stands are just as consistent as you are, provided <some document> is 
the Christian Bible.

I think this is appropriate ending for our on-going thread. It's gone on long 
enough and you've answered my original question, which was "Who's objective 
standard?"

Cheers,

-Ed Evans


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/