An Amoral Manifesto (Part II)

[chaz wyman]

C:But that is a ridiculous and inaccurate view of my ethical position. I have always counselled NO HARM.

AS: Sorry...I was talking about the hypothetical story about the RSPCC. To me Hypothetical/fantasy is the same thing. I thought you were saying that the RSPCC was making people give them their money or else they would punch a baby. That is the fantasy/hypothetical I was talking about. Pay no attention to my reply...I didn't understand then...I do now. Please strike my comment from the script. lol

C:Believing a thing when asked is not the same as finding that belief in behaviour. Christians do not think that god allows other rules to apply to other people, there is no room for relativism in their creed, as far as I can see.

AS:Until they love someone who has committed a sin. Then all of a sudden they demand mercy for the one they love...which again...betrays their belief.

C:But if it were true what you say then they could NEVER say they were immoral - because NOT believing in absolutism would be the very excuse they need to characterise their behaviour as moral when absolutism says it is immoral.

AS: Perhaps you are right...but I think all they have to do is follow the good points in the bible which says judge not lest ye be judged and they would be fine. I don't think anyone can call themselves moral when they want mercy for themselves and damnation for others. That just smacks immoral...and is the reason I don't follow the Christian church. Their beliefs and actions betray them.

Interestingly enough the Calvinist system, which informs the entire Presbyterian system insists that God chose the saved and the damned at the beginning of time, and what god does is moral. You you might agree with me that such a thing is unethical - but they insist it is moral.


C:Sure a nudist has to consider harm to others.

AS: Yes, and others have to be considerate of the nudist as well. Imagine if you hated clothes but yet were forced to wear them by society. Isn't is natural to be nude? I say there should be allowances for nudity in society. I am sure a compromise could solve this morally relative problem.

Brighton beach as a nudist section.

C:As for the 10 commandments......

AS: Oh goodie...playtime! Okay let's see....

1 I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me .

AS:Well, technically I haven't found God yet...I have been trying but religion pushes me away....because they have no idea who he/she is. So until God appears to me...I will hope and pray he's the moral relative God I know in my heart. If he/she isn't...then he doesn't exist. So...I think I can say yes...I keep this one...because I am not going to follow any ol God I don't feel is as ethical/moral/good as me.

2 You shall not make for yourself an idol

AS: I think that goes with the one above so I would say technically...I keep it.

3 Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

AS: I break it all over the place. So if God is forgiving...and exists...he will forgive me for this fun indulgence as I don't do it maliciously.

4 Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

AS: I never understood what this meant. I can't see how not working = holiness. But ok...I don't keep it...occasionally I work on Sunday.

Did you know that there is an invention used by Jews that enables them to dial a phone number with a phone designed to release a button to dial so that they can say they did not press it? There are a range of devices such as home heating switches, and water taps that work in reverse so they can claim they are doing no work, and not gathering water!


5 Honor your father and mother

AS:Mother almost always. Don't really know my Dad so I don't think it counts.

6 You shall not kill/murder

AS: I think by murder, God mean another human. So Yes I keep this commandment.

7 You shall not commit adultery

AS:Yes, keep it... cept for porn and dreams...lol.

8 You shall not steal

AS:I only stole once when I was 5 or 6. My mom bought me an Indian headdress and I stole some feathers and put them under my shirt so that my sister could have one too. The manager told my mom at the counter and they lifted my shirt for all to see. Quite embarrassing! ...and I have never stole anything again.

9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour

AS: never.

10 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour

AS: Never coveted my neighbor's wife...lol. Oh shit...wait...I take that back...there are times when I wish I had been born a 50's era dad...where all you had to do was go to work and come home and you would have the little woman bring you your paper and slippers, have a hot meal waiting in a clean house and all you had to do was pat each kid on the head and your attractive high heel wearing wife would keep the kids quiet...and you could just do what you wanted anytime and all you had to do was bring home a paycheck...sounds like heaven! Okay...Count this one as a definite "break it."


How did I do?

I think you scored one better than me, as I am living in sin, separated from my 'wife' for 18 years. I never believed in marriage in the first place, and only married for cash reasons. So this one is broken to smithereens.

[artisticsolution]

C:Interestingly enough the Calvinist system, which informs the entire Presbyterian system insists that God chose the saved and the damned at the beginning of time, and what god does is moral. You you might agree with me that such a thing is unethical - but they insist it is moral.

AS:See this is where people's beliefs and actions betray them. It is not logical to read all the wonderfully moral sentiments of the bible and then translate them towards the direction of the sentiment that are immoral. Take for example your story above...automatically people think the worst. The saying "God has chosen ones" to them equals the same as saying "He creates the ones who will go to heaven and the ones who will go to hell." This is manipulation of morality to suit human beings immoral stance that not all people deserve to be treated equal. This goes against the bible saying God loves all his children. It goes against God saying he gave us all free will. It is this human interpretation of God's words that I can't abide by.

Could it possibly be that God...knowing all things....knows the future? Could it be that God made man have free will because he wanted to see if someone would surprise him and escape their future? Could it be that God made us in his image which mean that he himself isn't perfect and that is all apart of nature and how life is supposed to be...struggle and success/ struggle and defeat and who achieves success in overcoming their shortcomings gets rewarded? Isn't it the not knowing that is fun?

Can you imagine, if there is a God, how horrible his existence in eternity is? Knowing day in and day out what is going to happen? Can you imagine being God, in this case, and going through the universe....creating an infinite amount of worlds, hoping that you would find one being who escaped their fate? And to the people who say God is cruel, then I would say, If God exists and if he made us to be just his toys/playthings/experiments and we have no real soul or identity (Meaning he just had to create us as if we did have identity for the experiment)...then God is just a scientist and incredibly lonely....but not necessarily cruel.

C:Brighton beach as a nudist section.

AS: Ah...how generous of them. No...I am talking about nudists sharing the world...in everyday places. I have heard alot of talk in this forum about "might should not make right." Well, if that is the case then the earth should be for all of us as long as we don't directly harm one another. And since we were born nude...and nudity by itself doesn't harm (if it did we would have a difficult time having sex, being doctors, changing diapers, taking baths, etc). I am just giving an illustration of what it would be like if might did not = right.

C:Did you know that there is an invention used by Jews that enables them to dial a phone number with a phone designed to release a button to dial so that they can say they did not press it? There are a range of devices such as home heating switches, and water taps that work in reverse so they can claim they are doing no work, and not gathering water!

AS: Right, their beliefs and actions betray them. But this is not limited to religious people. This is a human condition.

C:I think you scored one better than me, as I am living in sin, separated from my 'wife' for 18 years. I never believed in marriage in the first place, and only married for cash reasons. So this one is broken to smithereens.

AS: Well, I wouldn't consider 18 years separated a marriage. So, if I was God, I'd forgive you. I don't think you broke this commandment.

[chaz wyman]

C:Interestingly enough the Calvinist system, which informs the entire Presbyterian system insists that God chose the saved and the damned at the beginning of time, and what god does is moral. You you might agree with me that such a thing is unethical - but they insist it is moral.

AS:See this is where people's beliefs and actions betray them. It is not logical to read all the wonderfully moral sentiments of the bible and then translate them towards the direction of the sentiment that are immoral. Take for example your story above...automatically people think the worst. The saying "God has chosen ones" to them equals the same as saying "He creates the ones who will go to heaven and the ones who will go to hell." This is manipulation of morality to suit human beings immoral stance that not all people deserve to be treated equal. This goes against the bible saying God loves all his children. It goes against God saying he gave us all free will. It is this human interpretation of God's words that I can't abide by.

According to Calvin's reading of the Scriptures the idea of free-will does not exist, and was not bestowed by God. God is omnipotent, omniscient so he has to know who will die a sinner and who will die a saint. God is morality and so this must be a moral act by god to predetermine the chosen. There is no contradiction here. It might be abhorrent but it is logical.

Could it possibly be that God...knowing all things....knows the future? Could it be that God made man have free will because he wanted to see if someone would surprise him and escape their future? Could it be that God made us in his image which mean that he himself isn't perfect and that is all apart of nature and how life is supposed to be...struggle and success/ struggle and defeat and who achieves success in overcoming their shortcomings gets rewarded? Isn't it the not knowing that is fun?

According to Calvin, no. You have to have a perfect god, this flies against free-will. God's will cannot be defied.

Can you imagine, if there is a God, how horrible his existence in eternity is? Knowing day in and day out what is going to happen? Can you imagine being God, in this case, and going through the universe....creating an infinite amount of worlds, hoping that you would find one being who escaped their fate? And to the people who say God is cruel, then I would say, If God exists and if he made us to be just his toys/playthings/experiments and we have no real soul or identity (Meaning he just had to create us as if we did have identity for the experiment)...then God is just a scientist and incredibly lonely....but not necessarily cruel.

I can perfectly well accept that a God is perfectly okay with his eternal existence, because that is what it has to mean to be god. But I also know that if he is the creator of all , then it is meaningless to call him benevolent. Being god has to mean that he has no understanding of loneliness too. This contradicts the assertion that he is omniscient, as he can't know what it is like to be less than omniscient, he can't know what it is like to die, starve or fear for one life. These are just the many contradictions on the system of Theism that leads me to reject it.





C:Brighton beach as a nudist section.

AS: Ah...how generous of them. No...I am talking about nudists sharing the world...in everyday places. I have heard alot of talk in this forum about "might should not make right." Well, if that is the case then the earth should be for all of us as long as we don't directly harm one another. And since we were born nude...and nudity by itself doesn't harm (if it did we would have a difficult time having sex, being doctors, changing diapers, taking baths, etc). I am just giving an illustration of what it would be like if might did not = right.

Jeremy Bentham. If there were more nudist than non-nudist then it would have to be the non nudists that would have to put up with the problem


C:Did you know that there is an invention used by Jews that enables them to dial a phone number with a phone designed to release a button to dial so that they can say they did not press it? There are a range of devices such as home heating switches, and water taps that work in reverse so they can claim they are doing no work, and not gathering water!

AS: Right, their beliefs and actions betray them. But this is not limited to religious people. This is a human condition.

I don't think such hypocrisy fools god.

C:I think you scored one better than me, as I am living in sin, separated from my 'wife' for 18 years. I never believed in marriage in the first place, and only married for cash reasons. So this one is broken to smithereens.

AS: Well, I wouldn't consider 18 years separated a marriage. So, if I was God, I'd forgive you. I don't think you broke this commandment.

I think you are mistaken. The commandments are legal, conceived by man to control men.

[artisticsolution]

Jeremy Bentham. If there were more nudist than non-nudist then it would have to be the non nudists that would have to put up with the problem

Hi Chaz,

You and I think so differently, but I think we come to the same conclusions...possibly...but not sure. Were as I want to explore possible solutions, it seems to me that you want to discuss for the sake of discussing. Not that there's anything wrong with that...I just sometimes don't understand the argument you are making if it seems to me as if there is no point. Perhaps you could let me in on the reason you would just quote jeremy Bentham to confirm what I had said instead of telling me what your thoughts are about might = right. I am specifically talking about your statement that said that you wanted respect to do what you wanted to do. I have been making the argument that everyone wants this same courtesy....but that it seems impossible in a case like nudity. Where some people want to live nude and others don't want to see them nude. I am trying to illustrate that in the case of might makes right. Meaning most of us would go with 'might' if it went with our beliefs but would opt for the opposite if it went against our beliefs. Which is a hypocritical and impossible scenario for freedom. What I want to do is get to the truth that it seems almost impossible for everyone to have it their way. So compromise must begin to take place. We must resist our urge to get angry over superficial irritations that don't really do direct harm to us and begin to replace it with a more tolerant approach.

What is your argument? Because I am unclear about the point you are making.

[chaz wyman]

Jeremy Bentham. If there were more nudist than non-nudist then it would have to be the non nudists that would have to put up with the problem

Hi Chaz,

You and I think so differently, but I think we come to the same conclusions...possibly...but not sure. Were as I want to explore possible solutions, it seems to me that you want to discuss for the sake of discussing. Not that there's anything wrong with that...I just sometimes don't understand the argument you are making if it seems to me as if there is no point. Perhaps you could let me in on the reason you would just quote jeremy Bentham to confirm what I had said instead of telling me what your thoughts are about might = right. I am specifically talking about your statement that said that you wanted respect to do what you wanted to do. I have been making the argument that everyone wants this same courtesy....but that it seems impossible in a case like nudity. Where some people want to live nude and others don't want to see them nude. I am trying to illustrate that in the case of might makes right. Meaning most of us would go with 'might' if it went with our beliefs but would opt for the opposite if it went against our beliefs. Which is a hypocritical and impossible scenario for freedom. What I want to do is get to the truth that it seems almost impossible for everyone to have it their way. So compromise must begin to take place. We must resist our urge to get angry over superficial irritations that don't really do direct harm to us and begin to replace it with a more tolerant approach.

What is your argument? Because I am unclear about the point you are making.

As there are so few nudists that want to wear nothing all the time, or in the presence of people who would be upset it is clear that you are making up a hypothetical. I don't have to take this at all seriously because this is not the state of affairs that is the case.
Were you to find me a single person on earth that is so keen on nudity that they want to wear nothing regardless of others' views and regardless of other factors such as the weather and what work they might be doing, then I would take your case more seriously.
Let me ask you something that is closer the the truth. Many women when visiting Muslim countries where the Burkha is commonly worn think it is okay to walk in public dressed like a whore. How would you advice them, what do you feel about this, what sort of response do you think they would get?

As for Bentham, his argument is not "right is might", that is a question asked by Socrates. Bentham is attributed with utilitarianism; "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". In this case the wishes of the many; the anti-nudists outweigh the needs of the few; the nudists. Though it is possible to accommodate nudist in a limited way, the main priority is for the main group of persons. The trick is to be able to balance the pleasure of the nudists against the pain of the anti-nudists, or the pain of the nudists against the pleasure of the anti-nudists, with the codicil that the pain or pleasure experienced by the different groups may not be equal. Thus it might give mild amusement to a thousand people to punch a person in the face, but does the pain of that person outweigh the pain? Clearly the principle does not always work.

[John]

Were you to find me a single person on earth that is so keen on nudity that they want to wear nothing regardless of others' views and regardless of other factors such as the weather and what work they might be doing, then I would take your case more seriously.

Actually, you might want to check out the case of Stephen Gough (that's a link to a Wikipedia article not a pic of him btw ) the so called "naked rambler" who has been arrested over 20 times, almost all of them in Scotland, on public order offences for hiking while naked.

Incidents include stripping off on a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh, appearing naked in the dock and stripping off as soon as he's released from prison (and usually being re-arrested).

To me his behaviour looks like that of someone with serious mental health issues but he claims he's campaigning on behalf of the public nudity group "Freedom to be Yourself".

Just wanted to share this as it sprung immediately to mind when I read your post as I used to work in a court building and remember some of his appearances.

[chaz wyman]

Were you to find me a single person on earth that is so keen on nudity that they want to wear nothing regardless of others' views and regardless of other factors such as the weather and what work they might be doing, then I would take your case more seriously.

Actually, you might want to check out the case of Stephen Gough (that's a link to a Wikipedia article not a pic of him btw ) the so called "naked rambler" who has been arrested over 20 times, almost all of them in Scotland, on public order offences for hiking while naked.

Incidents include stripping off on a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh, appearing naked in the dock and stripping off as soon as he's released from prison (and usually being re-arrested).

To me his behaviour looks like that of someone with serious mental health issues but he claims he's campaigning on behalf of the public nudity group "Freedom to be Yourself".

Just wanted to share this as it sprung immediately to mind when I read your post as I used to work in a court building and remember some of his appearances.

Thanks - yeah I think I've heard of him. Do you think he is wearing any clothes in this weather??
More power to him though.

[John]

Thanks - yeah I think I've heard of him. Do you think he is wearing any clothes in this weather??
More power to him though.

Dunno, he's in Perth prison at the moment.

[artisticsolution]

C:As there are so few nudists that want to wear nothing all the time, or in the presence of people who would be upset it is clear that you are making up a hypothetical. I don't have to take this at all seriously because this is not the state of affairs that is the case.

AS: But you make up hypothetical scenarios/arguments all the time....and so do other philosophers. Why am I not allowed?
I believe that nudity is as natural as being homosexual. I believe it is society's irrational attitude about sexuality keeps people in their clothes. You can't say it is always the weather, some places are nice all year round and most places are nice in the summer. Also, wearing a bikini is almost 'nude' and those are common place in society. So, I believe if a lot of people started "coming out of the closet" as far as nudity goes, it would be as accepted as when homosexuals came out of the closet with their sexuality. At first they would be persecuted but then after a while it would be the norm.

C:Let me ask you something that is closer the the truth. Many women when visiting Muslim countries where the Burkha is commonly worn think it is okay to walk in public dressed like a whore. How would you advice them, what do you feel about this, what sort of response do you think they would get?

AS: First let me say I am offended when you use the word whore to describe a woman's attire. Secondly, I believe when you go to another country it is good manners to try to keep as close to their customs as possible. However, I do think forcing people to wear Burkha's, esp in the heat. is cruel. If a woman wants to wear one because of her faith I can certainly understand. If she doesn't then she shouldn't be forced to. I wonder how many women in a Muslim country that have such laws would choose to wear a Burkha if they got rid of the law. I think if there was no law, it would only be a matter of time that they would dress more comfortably.

C: In this case the wishes of the many; the anti-nudists outweigh the needs of the few; the nudists. Though it is possible to accommodate nudist in a limited way, the main priority is for the main group of persons. The trick is to be able to balance the pleasure of the nudists against the pain of the anti-nudists, or the pain of the nudists against the pleasure of the anti-nudists, with the codicil that the pain or pleasure experienced by the different groups may not be equal. Thus it might give mild amusement to a thousand people to punch a person in the face, but does the pain of that person outweigh the pain? Clearly the principle does not always work.

AS: I don't understand. Punching a person in the face directly harms the person. Nudity doesn't. Saying nudity harms people and should not be allowed in public is the same as saying, "most people are heterosexual and it causes them pain to see homosexual displays of affection so we must ban homosexuality in public."

This is the problem I see with morality. Most people care about their wants and needs more than they care about others wants and needs. In order to allow for the most freedom for all, I think there has to be compromise and tolerance.

[chaz wyman]

C:As there are so few nudists that want to wear nothing all the time, or in the presence of people who would be upset it is clear that you are making up a hypothetical. I don't have to take this at all seriously because this is not the state of affairs that is the case.

AS: But you make up hypothetical scenarios/arguments all the time....and so do other philosophers. Why am I not allowed?
I did not say you were not allowed - I said that it was not important AND gave you a possible solution.
I believe that nudity is as natural as being homosexual. I believe it is society's irrational attitude about sexuality keeps people in their clothes. You can't say it is always the weather, some places are nice all year round and most places are nice in the summer. Also, wearing a bikini is almost 'nude' and those are common place in society. So, I believe if a lot of people started "coming out of the closet" as far as nudity goes, it would be as accepted as when homosexuals came out of the closet with their sexuality. At first they would be persecuted but then after a while it would be the norm.

C:Let me ask you something that is closer the the truth. Many women when visiting Muslim countries where the Burkha is commonly worn think it is okay to walk in public dressed like a whore. How would you advice them, what do you feel about this, what sort of response do you think they would get?

AS: First let me say I am offended when you use the word whore to describe a woman's attire.
What about when they look exactly like a whore? And you don't have to dress down very far to get called that in Islam.
Secondly, I believe when you go to another country it is good manners to try to keep as close to their customs as possible.
Why? WHy not go nude - afterall you say it is perfectly natural???
However, I do think forcing people to wear Burkha's, esp in the heat. is cruel. If a woman wants to wear one because of her faith I can certainly understand. If she doesn't then she shouldn't be forced to. I wonder how many women in a Muslim country that have such laws would choose to wear a Burkha if they got rid of the law. I think if there was no law, it would only be a matter of time that they would dress more comfortably.
I don't think ANY Muslim country enforces the Burkha with law.

C: In this case the wishes of the many; the anti-nudists outweigh the needs of the few; the nudists. Though it is possible to accommodate nudist in a limited way, the main priority is for the main group of persons. The trick is to be able to balance the pleasure of the nudists against the pain of the anti-nudists, or the pain of the nudists against the pleasure of the anti-nudists, with the codicil that the pain or pleasure experienced by the different groups may not be equal. Thus it might give mild amusement to a thousand people to punch a person in the face, but does the pain of that person outweigh the pain? Clearly the principle does not always work.

AS: I don't understand. Punching a person in the face directly harms the person. Nudity doesn't.
Yes it does. Some people are horrified a the sight of a penis dangling in the wind.
Saying nudity harms people and should not be allowed in public is the same as saying, "most people are heterosexual and it causes them pain to see homosexual displays of affection so we must ban homosexuality in public."
Yes it is the same and for exactly the same reason. The only difference is that PDA (public displays of affection) are not quite as offensive as the sight of a penis. In some countries ANY PDA by heteros is not thought seemly- just like dressing like a whore - it is also offensive - you do you think it is okay to offend someone with a PDA and not okay to dress like a whore?

This is the problem I see with morality. Most people care about their wants and needs more than they care about others wants and needs. In order to allow for the most freedom for all, I think there has to be compromise and tolerance.

But for this problem with have Kant's Categorical Imperative.

[artisticsolution]

C:What about when they look exactly like a whore? And you don't have to dress down very far to get called that in Islam.

AS:To me the word "whore" is a derogatory word like the word "n*****." It demeans women. Islam may call women "whores" simply because of what they wear but that does not necessarily mean the woman is a prostitute. And even if she was a prostitute, the word "whore" has a negative connotation because being a prostitute is a job and should be treated as such, imo (but that is another debate all together.)

Just because we have traditions which tells us that women are "whores" but the men that use them are using them to fulfill a natural bodily function, doesn't mean it's right. All it means is that in our past history men made the laws and ruled women and so of course they would see themselves as "good" and "women" as bad when performing the same act. Doesn't this "end" contradict perfect duty? What would kant have to say about that? (I didn't know what categorical imperative meant so I looked it up on wikipedia. Please bear with me...I only read through it once and have a ton of questions...which I will ask at a later time as I am late right now and need time to read through it again and formulate my questions. But thank you so much for telling me about this philosophy!)

C: WHy not go nude - afterall you say it is perfectly natural???

AS: Because I choose to be mindful of others. I choose to try as much as possible to consider their values. I would hope that they would consider mine too. So when visiting their country I would try to keep their customs. If I couldn't, I wouldn't visit. But what I am talking about is compromise here. It is not right that all the clothes wearers should walk around clothed and never allow a nudist to walk around nude. I think they could at least come up with a compromise...like maybe "nude day(s)" or something to that effect. It might interest you to know that I am not a "nudist" (well...not usually in public as a habit) But it doesn't matter. I am not arguing that nudes should take over the world and impose their bodies on people who don't want to see them. I am saying that the nudes should also honor the prudes wanting to not see them nude as well as clothed people honoring nudes if all want freedom to ring.

Kant said,

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Well, I don't understand what he is saying here. Let's suppose that everyone did this....there would legitimately be some people walking around nude and some people walking around clothed according to their maxim. (there would be millions of scenarios of this type...as all people wanting different laws to suit their needs and some laws conflict with other laws. Which laws would we pick in this scenario? )

C:I don't think ANY Muslim country enforces the Burkha with law.

AS: I thought the Taliban in Afghanistan did....am I mistaken? Also, if the women don't wear burkhas in Muslim countries are they called whore like you say above? If so I would consider this akin to force as shame is a form of punishment.

C: The only difference is that PDA (public displays of affection) are not quite as offensive as the sight of a penis.

AS:I disagree. Some people in my country have killed over homosexual acts of PDA.

C:In some countries ANY PDA by heteros is not thought seemly- just like dressing like a whore - it is also offensive - you do you think it is okay to offend someone with a PDA and not okay to dress like a whore?

AS: I don't think any of it is offensive. But that is because I feel it does not constitute "direct harm." Some people I would not care to see nude or to see making out...but that is just my problem...It should not be a reason to force my will on them, as I would not want them to force their will on me. In wikipedia it said:

"Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations."

Isn't feeling harm over a 'visual' subjective, as sight does not touch ones person and therefore can't directly harm as a punch in the face? You yourself said you want people to respect your right to do what you want to do. You can see how if everyone did not respect an others right too, that freedom would be impossible for anyone as everyone would be telling the other one what to do.

C:But for this problem with have Kant's Categorical Imperative.

AS: Again, thank you for mentioning categorical imperative. I didn't know about this. I hope you will help me along as I learn.

[chaz wyman]

C:What about when they look exactly like a whore? And you don't have to dress down very far to get called that in Islam.

AS:To me the word "whore" is a derogatory word like the word "n*****." It demeans women. Islam may call women "whores" simply because of what they wear but that does not necessarily mean the woman is a prostitute.

The word whore does not demean a whore. I was not interested in prostitutes as such but women who dress the same way.

And even if she was a prostitute, the word "whore" has a negative connotation because being a prostitute is a job and should be treated as such, imo (but that is another debate all together.)

The word whore is negative in your brain. I don't have any negative feelings towards whores and prostitutes. I think they do a difficult and dangerous job. I also think they need protection and legitimation.

Just because we have traditions which tells us that women are "whores" but the men that use them are using them to fulfill a natural bodily function, doesn't mean it's right.

Its right if they pay what is asked. Your problem is that you are prejudiced towards prostitutes, that makes you sick in the head and part of the problem. I think they have every right to sell their services.

All it means is that in our past history men made the laws and ruled women and so of course they would see themselves as "good" and "women" as bad when performing the same act.

Prostitution is not illegal.

Doesn't this "end" contradict perfect duty? What would kant have to say about that? (I didn't know what categorical imperative meant so I looked it up on wikipedia. Please bear with me...I only read through it once and have a ton of questions...which I will ask at a later time as I am late right now and need time to read through it again and formulate my questions. But thank you so much for telling me about this philosophy!)

C: WHy not go nude - afterall you say it is perfectly natural???

AS: Because I choose to be mindful of others. I choose to try as much as possible to consider their values. I would hope that they would consider mine too. So when visiting their country I would try to keep their customs. If I couldn't, I wouldn't visit. But what I am talking about is compromise here. It is not right that all the clothes wearers should walk around clothed and never allow a nudist to walk around nude. I think they could at least come up with a compromise...like maybe "nude day(s)" or something to that effect. It might interest you to know that I am not a "nudist" (well...not usually in public as a habit) But it doesn't matter. I am not arguing that nudes should take over the world and impose their bodies on people who don't want to see them. I am saying that the nudes should also honor the prudes wanting to not see them nude as well as clothed people honoring nudes if all want freedom to ring.

Kant said,

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Well, I don't understand what he is saying here. Let's suppose that everyone did this....there would legitimately be some people walking around nude and some people walking around clothed according to their maxim. (there would be millions of scenarios of this type...as all people wanting different laws to suit their needs and some laws conflict with other laws. Which laws would we pick in this scenario? )

He is saying that if you think being nude is okay then that should be so for all. If you think wearing clothes is required then all should wear clothes. But if you think by a simple act that you can avoid harm to others, then that should be considered to be a universal law.

C:I don't think ANY Muslim country enforces the Burkha with law.

AS: I thought the Taliban in Afghanistan did....am I mistaken?

Yes you are mistaken. There is a supposedly democratic Government there - that's what we were supposed to be there for in the last 8 years.

Also, if the women don't wear burkhas in Muslim countries are they called whore like you say above? If so I would consider this akin to force as shame is a form of punishment.

Please cite! I imagine that there are some examples in rural communities, but I don't know if it are legally enforced


C: The only difference is that PDA (public displays of affection) are not quite as offensive as the sight of a penis.

AS:I disagree. Some people in my country have killed over homosexual acts of PDA.

Oh.... that's okay then! Do you think those say people would think seeing a penis waved about would be okay???
No.. oh - then the point I am making - that nudity is not as extreme as kissing in public is true?


C:In some countries ANY PDA by heteros is not thought seemly- just like dressing like a whore - it is also offensive - you do you think it is okay to offend someone with a PDA and not okay to dress like a whore?

AS: I don't think any of it is offensive. But that is because I feel it does not constitute "direct harm."

Sorry but it not for you to judge 'direct harm" of another person. If I killed a lamb in front of your eyes and gutted it on the sidewalk and thought that I was not doing you any offence - what would you think?

Some people I would not care to see nude or to see making out...but that is just my problem...It should not be a reason to force my will on them, as I would not want them to force their will on me. In wikipedia it said:

"Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations."

Isn't feeling harm over a 'visual' subjective, as sight does not touch ones person and therefore can't directly harm as a punch in the face? You yourself said you want people to respect your right to do what you want to do. You can see how if everyone did not respect an others right too, that freedom would be impossible for anyone as everyone would be telling the other one what to do.

Now you are confusing Kant and Bentham.
I am saying that Bentham's greatest happiness to the greatest number, could be invoked to do a lot of harm to one in the interests of the many. So it could be okay for a boxer to suffer harm because many people get pleasure seeing a fight. Kant might not be so easy on the situation.
Kant would insist on the consent of all those involved. With Bentham you could argue that no consent would be necessary as long as it made enough people happy.




C:But for this problem we have Kant's Categorical Imperative.

AS: Again, thank you for mentioning categorical imperative. I didn't know about this. I hope you will help me along as I learn.

Okay/ I'm learning too. The other big one is John Stuart Mill. He is closer to do what you will if no harm comes to others.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Chaz,

Ah, I think I am getting where you are coming from...and I really am starting to dig it. At first one can take you as being contrary just for arguments sake but then if you really pay attention you go much deeper than expected.

C:The word whore is negative in your brain. I don't have any negative feelings towards whores and prostitutes. I think they do a difficult and dangerous job. I also think they need protection and legitimation.

AS: I see what you are saying. Yes, you are correct. The word "whore" has a negative connotation in my brain. Where I am from, it is common place for society to view prostitution as something negative. I also think it is a difficult and dangerous job, and it needs protection and to be legitimized.

However, as with the N word, the word whore would not carry a negative connotation if society stopped thinking of those words as negative. But the truth is they still do...and by doing so they demonize groups of people for their own folly. What I am trying to say is, if we continue using those words without making people aware of our good intentions, people will just assume we are saying that a way a woman dresses makes her either good or bad.

For example, saying someone dresses like a football player, is not seen by society as a negative way to dress because society doesn't demonize football players. However, saying someone dresses like a whore falsely accuses that person of being a prostitute in the eyes of society because they hold a negative connotation for prostitutes. When the real truth is that there are prostitutes who wear all different types of clothing....maybe even a burhka. Conversely, some virgins might walk around in a bikini and society would not call them whores if they were going swimming. Also, a man can walk around with very few clothes on and not be called a whore.

C: I think they have every right to sell their services.

AS: I also think they have every right to sell their services and to hold their head up high as they are providing a service that not everyone can do well. Just like any entertainer.

C:Prostitution is not illegal.

AS: It is in Las Vegas.

C:He is saying that if you think being nude is okay then that should be so for all. If you think wearing clothes is required then all should wear clothes.

AS:Okay, but then we are still left with the problem of who gets to decide which one is the law. Doesn't that then spit us back out at might makes right or utilitarianism?

C:But if you think by a simple act that you can avoid harm to others, then that should be considered to be a universal law.

AS:Yes, I believe etiquette and manners would go along way as guidelines...and then leave the laws for the actual physical damage.

C:Yes you are mistaken. There is a supposedly democratic Government there - that's what we were supposed to be there for in the last 8 years.

AS: I said "did"...past tense.

AS: Also, if the women don't wear burkhas in Muslim countries are they called whore like you say above? If so I would consider this akin to force as shame is a form of punishment.

C:Please cite! I imagine that there are some examples in rural communities, but I don't know if it are legally enforced

AS: What do you mean "please cite?" This wasn't my argument...it was yours. You brought up Muslim countries thinking women who do not dress in burhkas to be "dressing like whores ". I didn't.

C:Oh.... that's okay then! Do you think those say people would think seeing a penis waved about would be okay???
No.. oh - then the point I am making - that nudity is not as extreme as kissing in public is true?

AS: I did not understand any of this.

C:Sorry but it not for you to judge 'direct harm" of another person. If I killed a lamb in front of your eyes and gutted it on the sidewalk and thought that I was not doing you any offence - what would you think?

AS:Well, there are a thousand scenarios we could offer. Are lambs becoming extinct? Are people starving and you need to feed them? Are you doing it for shock value? Are you insane? Are you threatening me? Etc. Any law made in this case must be made in light of the "gray" areas that may apply. It's simply not as cut and dry as saying you just came up and punched me in the face for no reason but to punch me in the face.

C:I am saying that Bentham's greatest happiness to the greatest number, could be invoked to do a lot of harm to one in the interests of the many. So it could be okay for a boxer to suffer harm because many people get pleasure seeing a fight. Kant might not be so easy on the situation.
Kant would insist on the consent of all those involved. With Bentham you could argue that no consent would be necessary as long as it made enough people happy.

AS: And I would argue, fuck what made the most people happy in this instance. Were the boxers happy? Did they love and what they did? If they did, I see no harm in others appreciating the sport. I also see no harm in people picketing the sport in protest. It's these types of debates that raises societies conscientiousness and makes us more aware.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz,

Ah, I think I am getting where you are coming from...and I really am starting to dig it. At first one can take you as being contrary just for arguments sake but then if you really pay attention you go much deeper than expected.

Thank you that is a nice thing to say - so rare on a forum like this.


C:The word whore is negative in your brain. I don't have any negative feelings towards whores and prostitutes. I think they do a difficult and dangerous job. I also think they need protection and legitimation.

AS: I see what you are saying. Yes, you are correct. The word "whore" has a negative connotation in my brain. Where I am from, it is common place for society to view prostitution as something negative. I also think it is a difficult and dangerous job, and it needs protection and to be legitimized.

Great - I apologise for using the word - but it did get you thinking.


However, as with the N word, the word whore would not carry a negative connotation if society stopped thinking of those words as negative. But the truth is they still do...and by doing so they demonize groups of people for their own folly. What I am trying to say is, if we continue using those words without making people aware of our good intentions, people will just assume we are saying that a way a woman dresses makes her either good or bad.

I notice you can't bring yourself to type 'n*****'. In recent years black people have re-claimed the word n*****. I think this is probably a good thing. I don't think I'd be using anytime soon though.
My Dad was from the US, and when he first visited the UK ( c 1956) and heard my grandmother use the word 'darkie', he was shocked. But from her mouth there was not a negative connotation - maybe a little bit of ignorance (in the non pejorative sense), but she had had a Jamaican boyfriend when she was a gal and did not have a prejudiced bone in her body. Negative meanings are often self reflexive.
I have a black friend and hope that if her were ever to use the word n***** I would too. When that happens and everyone can say anything, then we will be truly free from prejudice.


For example, saying someone dresses like a football player, is not seen by society as a negative way to dress because society doesn't demonize football players. However, saying someone dresses like a whore falsely accuses that person of being a prostitute in the eyes of society because they hold a negative connotation for prostitutes. When the real truth is that there are prostitutes who wear all different types of clothing....maybe even a burhka. Conversely, some virgins might walk around in a bikini and society would not call them whores if they were going swimming. Also, a man can walk around with very few clothes on and not be called a whore.

C: I think they have every right to sell their services.

AS: I also think they have every right to sell their services and to hold their head up high as they are providing a service that not everyone can do well. Just like any entertainer.

RIght

C:Prostitution is not illegal.

AS: It is in Las Vegas.

I'm sure there are exceptions - I'm sure there are more in some states across the US. But it is a law that have never been able to stick in the UK. Soliciting for an immoral purpose can get dragged up. or 'kerb crawling'. Also pimping is illegal; making money FROM the prostitution of others; which seems fair to me.

C:He is saying that if you think being nude is okay then that should be so for all. If you think wearing clothes is required then all should wear clothes.

AS:Okay, but then we are still left with the problem of who gets to decide which one is the law. Doesn't that then spit us back out at might makes right or utilitarianism?

There are no easy answer in moral philosophy.

C:But if you think by a simple act that you can avoid harm to others, then that should be considered to be a universal law.

AS:Yes, I believe etiquette and manners would go along way as guidelines...and then leave the laws for the actual physical damage.

C:Yes you are mistaken. There is a supposedly democratic Government there - that's what we were supposed to be there for in the last 8 years.

AS: I said "did"...past tense.

AS: Also, if the women don't wear burkhas in Muslim countries are they called whore like you say above? If so I would consider this akin to force as shame is a form of punishment.

IN France they have banned them in public, on the grounds that they are counter to French notions of freedom - we'll have to see how that works. The danger is that some Muslims families will stop their women leaving the house, or women would feel unable to leave the home - that would be a disgusting consequence tantamount to imprisonment.


C:Please cite! I imagine that there are some examples in rural communities, but I don't know if it are legally enforced

AS: What do you mean "please cite?" This wasn't my argument...it was yours. You brought up Muslim countries thinking women who do not dress in burhkas to be "dressing like whores ". I didn't.

I was asking if you knew specifically if burkha wearing was enforceable by law. I'm not sure it is. It is a view that the West tends to have of Muslim countries; that of raging fundamentalists and sword waving nutters - but recent images from Tunis and Egypt and my own visits to Egypt pain wholly different pictures

C:Oh.... that's okay then! Do you think those say people would think seeing a penis waved about would be okay???
No.. oh - then the point I am making - that nudity is not as extreme as kissing in public is true?

AS: I did not understand any of this.

Let it go. I was insisting on a matter of fact in the line of argument that is now null and void.

C:Sorry but it not for you to judge 'direct harm" of another person. If I killed a lamb in front of your eyes and gutted it on the sidewalk and thought that I was not doing you any offence - what would you think?

AS:Well, there are a thousand scenarios we could offer. Are lambs becoming extinct? Are people starving and you need to feed them? Are you doing it for shock value? Are you insane? Are you threatening me? Etc. Any law made in this case must be made in light of the "gray" areas that may apply. It's simply not as cut and dry as saying you just came up and punched me in the face for no reason but to punch me in the face.

But it is a simple illustration that it is not easy to judge harm to another person, easy to judge your own, and difficult to find empathy with people that are very different.

C:I am saying that Bentham's greatest happiness to the greatest number, could be invoked to do a lot of harm to one in the interests of the many. So it could be okay for a boxer to suffer harm because many people get pleasure seeing a fight. Kant might not be so easy on the situation.
Kant would insist on the consent of all those involved. With Bentham you could argue that no consent would be necessary as long as it made enough people happy.

AS: And I would argue, fuck what made the most people happy in this instance. Were the boxers happy? Did they love and what they did? If they did, I see no harm in others appreciating the sport. I also see no harm in people picketing the sport in protest. It's these types of debates that raises societies conscientiousness and makes us more aware.

In the circus of ancient Rome thousands of people would derive their pleasure from the death of wild animals, convicts, prisoners of war, and 'willing' gladiators.
People are weird.
I have to say that I can imagine the thrill of it, but can also imagine the disgust too.
It was not that long ago that public hangings were enjoyed in our own cultures.

[artisticsolution]

IN France they have banned them in public, on the grounds that they are counter to French notions of freedom - we'll have to see how that works. The danger is that some Muslims families will stop their women leaving the house, or women would feel unable to leave the home - that would be a disgusting consequence tantamount to imprisonment.

Hi Chaz,

I am glad we are in agreement on most issues.

The true danger of this ban is loss of freedom. If a government bans the right for women to decide what they are going to wear, then how can they expect others to also not to respect the ability for women to make any decision for themselves? If a government deems a woman does not have the intelligence, morality, judgment to do something as simple as clothing themselves what on earth thinks that anyone will respect the more complex judgments as to when to leave the house, take care of children, vote, etc.?

This ban on clothing is unreasonable. If a woman wants to wear a burhka shouldn't it be assumed she is capable of making that decision on her own? Shouldn't the law be reserved for anyone trying to take away that basic human right to decide what to put on their own bodies? It seems pretty cut and dry. If it is not clear....then France should also place a ban on the pope wearing a robe and silly hat in their country or any other religious type attire and see how that goes over first.