Is Nudity Wrong?

[gengwall]

Que? What I got from your initial reply was that it was no better to judge a person on the basis of nudity than on the basis of clothing. I'm saying that holding values that relate to anything not directly associated with personality is bad; and if people were more nude, they probably would place value on nudity more than clothes, thus negating the real importance of personality, potentially alienating the less, erm, physically attractive folks.

But that happens right now with clothed people.

 

[Received]

Exactly. So what's the use in changing things if by changing them they essentially stay the same? They might even get worse.

 

[stan1980]

Exactly. So what's the use in changing things if by changing them they essentially stay the same? They might even get worse.

I never said things should necessarily change. I was just showing you your original point was invalid:

"Nudity as a value is wrong; this leads to evaluating the worth of a person based on his/her physicality, and this can never be good."

 

[gengwall]

Exactly. So what's the use in changing things if by changing them they essentially stay the same? They might even get worse.

OK - but that doesn't make nudity "wrong" per se. In fact, a little nakedess may work the opposite, removing many of the pretensions and postering we do to get attention (and therefore, "value").

 

[Received]

There's nothing wrong with nudity -- in certain contexts (again, throwing down a nude child in a company of pedophiles obviously isn't right or wise). There isn't anything wrong with clothes either. What allows for wrongness are values associated with the thing in question. Nudity and clothing are fine in themselves; but when values are applied to them, then things get negative -- then people get ostracized, usually because of things they can't control. Partiality.

 

[Received]

I never said things should necessarily change. I was just showing you your original point was invalid:

How did this prove that it was invalid? (Apologies, low blood sugar, not thinking perfectly [no, I'm not diabetic]).

 

[stan1980]

How did this prove that it was invalid? (Apologies, low blood sugar, not thinking perfectly [no, I'm not diabetic]).

Because a person is already judged on the clothes they wear

 

[gengwall]

There's nothing wrong with nudity -- in certain contexts (again, throwing down a nude child in a company of pedophiles obviously isn't right or wise). There isn't anything wrong with clothes either. What allows for wrongness are values associated with the thing in question. Nudity and clothing are fine in themselves; but when values are applied to them, then things get negative -- then people get ostracized, usually because of things they can't control. Partiality.

Oooh. OK, I get what you are saying. Yes, in certain contexts nudity is wrong. I related it to immodesty, as one such context, in a previous post. (Immodesty in the sense of doing something to attract attention or to get something you want).

 

[Received]

stan,

I fail to see how this invalidates the point that valuing anything outside of personality is bad. Forgive me if I seem obtuse.

 

[Athene]

Should ugly people put paper bags over their heads, too?

No, they tear easily, and when they get wet they fall apart. Ski masks would be better.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

No, they tear easily, and when they get wet they fall apart. Ski masks would be better.

Ha Ha...funny....

 

[stan1980]

stan,

I fail to see how this invalidates the point that valuing anything outside of personality is bad. Forgive me if I seem obtuse.

Well you said nudity is wrong as it leads to people evaluating the persons worth based on their physicality. All i meant was, that people instead, can base a fully clothed persons worth on their clothes. That's it basically.

 

[Received]

Yeah, but which is more unjust? Stereotypes towards people on the basis of fashion -- even moderate and some relatively poor people (with no financial sense) buy the "fashionable" clothes -- or solely genetic (the way you look)?

 

[stan1980]

Yeah, but which is more unjust? Stereotypes towards people on the basis of fashion -- even moderate and some relatively poor people (with no financial sense) buy the "fashionable" clothes -- or solely genetic (the way you look)?

I wouldn't say judging someone by their clothes or the way they look is particularly good. I think currently people already do judge a person by both, so you could argue that with the absence of clothes, at least that will be one less way in which a person will be judged.

 

[Received]

I think people's inclination to value a person on the basis of his clothes will be moved to the way he/she looks. Yes, they do judge on both, but presumably if the change ever happened they would focus all their predispositions to nudity, just as they changed their emphases of particular fashions in relation to clothes by holding in esteem one fashion or style over another, rather than having judgement overall diminish because the style/fashion changes.

 

[ews]

I wondered onto a nude beach in Southern California once and the nudes there were not Baywatch people but senior center people. I’m voting it's wrong on the nudity question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I wondered onto a nude beach in Southern California once and the nudes there were not Baywatch people but senior center people. I’m voting it's wrong on the nudity question.

On the other hand, perhaps witnessing the variety of bodies that average people have (not just finely selected "Baywatch people") would be healthier and more educational for people. Perhaps most people would appreciate their own bodies much better.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[invisible trousers]

Wrong? No. Generally inadvisable? Yes.