Should Women be Permitted to Appear Topless in Public?

Post Reply New Topic

But, they do draw the lines, right? What does it matter how they draw them. It may be of interest to you but it has not bearing on my point. That the lines are there at all is my only point. If there were no difference in our minds between morality and legality there would be no line drawing.

My goodness. Such ponderous pontificating, over whether women should show their boobies.

The nudey bars would just have to raise the ante

The issue is one of internal consistency. That we draw lines does not mean that we do not contradict ourselves, in fact, I think that many line-drawers DO contradict themselves. If they contradict themselves then their line drawing is not legitimate but rather part of a complex game of cognitive dissonance.

So are you suggesting that the only people with internal consistency are people who think morality and legality are the same? Am I being inconsistent by saying that lying is wrong but it should not be illegal? If so, why?

Well, I have not actually seen a way around it on some level. I mean, the only reason to disallow a law on one level of morality is for another moral aim. I am not arguing that you are necessarily inconsistent, but fully outline why lying shouldn't be illegal. I mean, lying is COMPLETELY illegal when it is recorded and part of an agreement. The issue I am trying to grapple with myself is the clear line on where it is consistent to allow something immoral and disallow something else immoral and perhaps I am making it too hard on myself because I am a very black and white thinker.

I think the difference between one immorality and another comes down to what it is we think people are capable of self regulating and the impact of the immoral behavior on society at large. It is the difference between things like coveting and stealing or greed and embezzling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071122/ap_on_re_eu/odd_topless_swimmers;_ylt=Ah4wAf6tAzOlYhQgmacrs5Gek3QF

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - A group of Swedish women is making waves by taking their tops off at public swimming pools in a protest against what they call gender-biased rules on swim wear.

About 40 women have joined the network and staged topless protests in at least three cities, said Sanna Ferm, 22, one of the founders of the group called Bara Brost, or Bare Breasts.

"The purpose of the campaign is to start a debate about why women's bodies are sexualized," Ferm said Wednesday.

She said the fact that men can be bare-chested in public swimming pools but not women is "a concrete example of how women have fewer rights than men."

Reactions from other swimmers have ranged from support and encouragement to anger and even indifference, she said.

The network was formed after two women who were swimming topless in a public swimming pool in Uppsala, north of Stockholm, were asked to cover up or leave.

Women can sunbathe topless in the summertime at beaches around Sweden, which is known for its relaxed attitude toward nudity, but they are required to wear tops at public swimming pools.

Inger Groteblad, a manager at the swimming facility in Uppsala, said it was a matter of security.

"We want to make sure that girls don't get subjected to sexual harassment," she was quoted as saying by tabloid Aftonbladet.

The women have filed a complaint against the facility to Sweden's Equal Opportunities Ombudsman.

Well, isn't the fact that an act is evil more important than the effects it necessarily has on others? Why not argue for government organizing all things for the moral end? If that fails then where is there a proper cut off? Is it just this highly subjective, squishy line for something that impacts the objectively true?

You seem to assume that the government could control everything in the moral domain, but there are some things that the government cannot regulate by arrest, prison, or even death. There would be no point in making coveting or greed illegal. The cops can stop someone from stealing and even throw them in jail, but they cannot stop that person from coveting. The person must self regulate that immorality or go unchecked. I'm not saying that a friend can't convince a person to stop coveting, but ultimately it is up the that person to decide whether or not to be convinced.

But there is much in the environment that can be controlled. If one controls the environment then how changing the actions of the person is much easier.

I think most countries already control much of the environment through their various legal systems in order to make their peoples more moral according to their own morality and to keep people safe. My point is that there are types of immorality that despite environment and despite concrete laws cannot be truly forcefully controlled by anyone other than the individual. To try and make such things illegal would make no sense because there would be no way of enforcing such a law.

Well, a negative externality depends on the context. A nudey bar's positive externality could be a church's negative.