JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 According to JASKN, it would be "silly" to change the colors to blue because: 1) Looking at the color orange doesn't "harm" anyone. 2) I can simply "not look" at the walls. This changes the context to a specific area you have under your exclusive control, says nothing about the source of discomfort behind your sight of nudity, nor says anything general about nudity as such. Discomfort at the sight of nudity, period, is pretty silly even considering nothing except our evolutionary line. Once we start considering things with our reasoning brains, it gets even sillier. Once we consider it against our recent religious past, the discomfort begins to seem like something we should be explicitly against. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriticalThinker2000 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Discomfort at the sight of nudity, period, is pretty silly even considering nothing except our evolutionary line. Once we start considering things with our reasoning brains, it gets even sillier. Once we consider it against our recent religious past, the discomfort begins to seem like something we should be explicitly against. It really depends on what you mean by 'discomfort.' Genitals, being sex organs, are not directly comparable to other body parts in this context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Nudity is like any other visual. It's one thing to like something, or not, and whether there should be a law prohibiting it. Perhaps the place to start is the concenpt of Rights. Rights are a righ to action and the purpose of Law is to protect that Right from others who may violate it. In this case, can a connection be made and verified that someone wearing thir Birthday Suit in public is violating my Rights? I'd have to chew on that more but I will add that I can certainly see private incidents that would be rational - For example food companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 [...] but I will add that I can certainly see private incidents that would be rational - For example food companies. If the argument is for sanitation, it's not nudity that is the issue, but any part of an exposed human body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Genitals, being sex organs, are not directly comparable to other body parts in this context.Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriticalThinker2000 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Why? Because they're sex organs. Touching genitals and touching fingers are not comparable and neither are looking at someones genitals and looking at their finger. Seeing someones sex organs is an incredibly personal activity. Obviously there are times and places for it but this idea that we should be comfortable with everyones nudity is really odd to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 You said they're different because they are different parts of the body, and further because sex organs are "incredibly personal," and finally because it's odd to you. The first is obvious, the last isn't an argument by itself, so... Why are they incredibly personal? What specifically makes sex organs inappropriate to be viewed, inherently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 I hope we are all aware that considerations such as: disgust - appreciation embarrassment - pride discomfort - desire rationality - irrationality with respect to wearing or not wearing clothes, or perceiving another individual wearing or not wearing clothes are all irrelevant to the original post's question regarding "LAWS which mandate the use of clothing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 I think the OP received a complete response/solution concerning nudity and law: private property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 I can't believe people are quibbling over subjective perceptual preferences... Let's argue about whether Blue or Orange is "better"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well, I'm sure you realize that usually, the underlying assumption is that public nudity is immoral, not just a matter of preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 By what standard would an Objectivist be able to defend such a position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriticalThinker2000 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 By what standard would an Objectivist be able to defend such a position? With a view on what sex is. You said they're different because they are different parts of the body, and further because sex organs are "incredibly personal," and finally because it's odd to you. The first is obvious, the last isn't an argument by itself, so... Why are they incredibly personal? What specifically makes sex organs inappropriate to be viewed, inherently? Sex organs are personal because sex is personal, private matter. I don't think sex organs are 'inherently inappropriate to be viewed.' We were discussing a very specific context: public nudity- meaning casual nudity amongst strangers. Although all Objectivism says about sex is that it's good, Mrs. Rand had views on sex that I agree with. She rejected the false dichotomy of: All sex is wrong vs. all sex is good. Similarly I reject the false dichotomy of: we should be ashamed of our genitals vs. we should be comfortable displaying our genitals all the time. I think my view on public nudity is the view consistent with a belief that sex is, as Rand put it, "one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually." Yet that is exactly what you do when you stroll around in public with your sex organs hanging out for every person to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 "Sex organs," aren't, unless they're engaged in sex. Also, they have multiple uses. Also, the rest of your body is also used when having sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Baratheon Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 JASKN - I use a locker room and group shower every day at work and most people are very unfit and gross. Maybe if we were in a state of nature and people weren't so fat/skinny and pale I wouldn't find it so unappealing. That doesn't mean I'm psychologically damaged - just that I don't like seeing human frailty and blubber. Nicky - Isn't objectivism supposed to be about not conforming to the limitations and irrationalities of others? JASKN is saying it's irrational (immoral?) to be embarrassed about nudity. I think the fact that he won't post a nude picture implies he doesn't actually believe this. Or maybe it's as you say, in which case he is allowing social pressure to get him to go against his morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 I can't believe people are quibbling over subjective perceptual preferences... Let's argue about whether Blue or Orange is "better"... 1. Clothing isn't a subjective preference. Being naked at the North Pole is worse than being clothed, and the opposite is true at the beach. Nothing subjective about it. 2. We're not quibbling over what's better (clothed or unclothed), we're quibbling over whether one of the options is disgusting or not. If you declared the color blue disgusting, that would be irrational too, and there would be plenty of room to quibble about it too. I hope we are all aware that considerations such as: disgust - appreciation embarrassment - pride discomfort - desire rationality - irrationality with respect to wearing or not wearing clothes, or perceiving another individual wearing or not wearing clothes are all irrelevant to the original post's question regarding "LAWS which mandate the use of clothing" If we accept that nudity can be rationally considered offensive to the senses ("disgusting"), then of course it's gonna be legislated against in public spaces. You don't have the right to be offend people's senses (urinate, defecate, dumb trash, or even leave your dog's feces) on the sidewalk. And no, the statement "there shouldn't be public spaces" doesn't answer the question at all. There are public spaces. The question is should we be allowed to be naked in them, not whether they should exist. It's disgusting would be an objective reason to legislate against it. But it's not disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) You don't see human frailty and blubber when those same people are clothed because you choose not to. Clothing does not really hide anything thanks to imagination, especially once you've seen a bunch of different body types nude. And, already addressed your claims about my motives, so nothing else to say there. If you don't believe me, oh well. I can't make you. Edited May 30, 2014 by JASKN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 JASKN is saying it's irrational (immoral?) to be embarrassed about nudity. I think the fact that he won't post a nude picture implies he doesn't actually believe this. Or maybe it's as you say, in which case he is allowing social pressure to get him to go against his morality. There are many reasons to not post a nude picture that have nothing to do with embarrassment about nudity. One is privacy in general - privacy does not imply embarrassment over what is kept private. I wouldn't even post a picture of myself, and I wouldn't post one nude, either. You can't assume that his reason has anything to do with nudity. I take it that his reason is something besides the irrational one, i.e. falling to social pressure. I'll make a post later today expanding on why I agree with JASKN, so the question you asked him would apply to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Nicky - Isn't objectivism supposed to be about not conforming to the limitations and irrationalities of others?No. Objectivism is about not adopting the irrationalities of others, not about pretending that everyone who is in any way irrational doesn't exist. Do you think Objectivism tells you to smoke a joint in front of a cop, or openly evade taxes? Or does it tell you to consider the limitations and irrationalities of others, because they are a part of the reality around you. What Objectivism would tell you though is to not buy into the religious right's assertion that the site of genitals is disgusting and shameful, and instead choose your own values. I use a locker room and group shower every day at work and most people are very unfit and gross.Are their genitals unfit and gross? Because that's what "nudity" means: having your genitals uncovered. It's not about showing your belly or any other part of your out of shape body, it's strictly about the genitals. If you wear shorts, or even so much as a thong, you're not nude. I fail to see how taking the shorts off suddenly makes a person who wasn't disgusting, disgusting. Edited May 30, 2014 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted May 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 What are you arguing? That it's irrational to be disgusted at the sight of certain naked people? We're not specifically discussing anyone in particular; we're discussing the human species, in general. And while there are certain people whom I would not care to see in their birthday suit, I don't think it is rational to extend that across humanity in general. Furthermore, while there are certain people I wouldn't care to see naked, I wouldn't be particularly shocked or appalled by it. I would find it mildly unpleasant and accordingly choose to look away. Who said anything about censoring? Well, the OP did, despite the fact that I didn't use that word for it. As to your right to forbid nudity on your own property, I think that's fairly straightforward. It's your property and if anyone doesn't want to wear clothing then they don't have to enter it. Conceded. What I'm curious about is the fact that almost every country on Earth (I believe) has some sort of laws against nudity; can that be reconciled with individual rights? Or should a properly Objectivist society allow people to run around as nature arranged them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted May 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Genitals, being sex organs, are not directly comparable to other body parts in this context. In their use or simply as they dangle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 It's not about showing your belly or any other part of your out of shape body, it's strictly about the genitals.Valid point; the examples to think about would be total nudity versus borderline legal clothing. It's probably legal for me to walk down the street bare-chested in a tiny pair of shorts with all my flab oozing in all directions and my wrinkles capturing shadows and testifying to decades of mistreatment. So, the question is: given that this is legal, should I also be disallowed from taking off those tiny shorts! JASKN 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 People have preferences -- I prefer blue over orange. I don't like the color orange as it is unpleasant to me when it comes to home decor, clothes, etc. So, if I buy a house and, by default, the colors of the walls are orange. According to JASKN, it would be "silly" to change the colors to blue because: But I take it that you find the discomfort of orange in a totally different way than discomfort of some nude bodies. You used feces to describe the discomfort of some nudity, while it doesn't apply to orange to you. Personally, I dislike the color yellow. It doesn't gross me out like oysters (which has a sensible justification), or feces (again, a rational justification exists). There isn't a rational reason to dislike yellow, but it can't apply to rationality anyway unless it was like "I think yellow is a color of special value that should only be seen in intimate situations". There is no specialness to yellow, nor is there for nudity. Yeah, sex is special - the act of it. Seeing it? Not really. Seeing genitals at all is even less noteworthy. If you just don't prefer nudity, it is fine, yet to be wholly disgusted seems to be missing any justification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted May 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 I'd have to chew on that more but I will add that I can certainly see private incidents that would be rational - For example food companies. Does McDonald's have the right to force its cooks to cover their pubes. . . Or not??? I think my view on public nudity is the view consistent with a belief that sex is, as Rand put it, "one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually." Yet that is exactly what you do when you stroll around in public with your sex organs hanging out for every person to see. Seeing is not the same as using. If I were to walk down the street and have sex with the first biped that I saw, that would be approaching sex casually; it would demonstrate a complete and utter disregard for the act of sex, for myself and for whomever I happened to see. If I were to walk down the street 'unimpeded,' however, it would demonstrate a total disregard for the opinions of anyone who might see me. "I don't care what they think of architecture, or anything else!" -Howard Roark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) You don't have the right to be offend people's senses (urinate, defecate, dumb trash, or even leave your dog's feces) on the sidewalk. And no, the statement "there shouldn't be public spaces" doesn't answer the question at all. There are public spaces. The question is should we be allowed to be naked in them, not whether they should exist. It's disgusting would be an objective reason to legislate against it. But it's not disgusting. To you it's not disgusting. To me it is. It is subjective. "It's disgusting" is not an objective reason to legislate against something because it is a matter of preference. The question is: who gets to decide what is offensive to the senses or not? Clearly the property owners. There is public space -- that doesn't mean that there aren't any rules. That is like saying: the government doesn't have the right to enforce traffic rules (laws) because the streets are owned by the public. The government takes the place of the property owner in cases of public space and properly makes the rules. Edited May 30, 2014 by thenelli01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.