Philosophical Vegan Forum

Is it moral to force men or women to wear veils or any particular garment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cwOqKfEYTg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

I ask this question, because forcing people to do so, seems to go against the notions of freedom, liberty, equality and fraternity. It is an insult to our fiduciary duty to each other.

In many countries, be it a religious, political or social custom; women and men are forced to wear particular garments, veils or beards are two examples of this.

Does this practice of using force go against our fiduciary duty to women and men?

These Golden Rules exists in most religions and cultures.

No one likes to be forced to do anything, this is irrefutable.

In some cultures, force is used to have men and women kowtow to the culture or religion. This is a poor and immoral ideology.

I believe that obliging people to submit to any political, social or religious norm, --- without a just cause, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

Force by what means?

I appreciate it when others wear clothing rather than running around naked. I think it's pretty reasonable that a restaurant might, for example, ask that patrons wear clothing, or even formal clothing because that's what other patrons want to see.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:46 pm Force by what means?

I appreciate it when others wear clothing rather than running around naked. I think it's pretty reasonable that a restaurant might, for example, ask that patrons wear clothing, or even formal clothing because that's what other patrons want to see.

Patrons of a restaurant need not eat there. 5,000 Muslim women a years are honor killed because they will not kowtow to what their men want them to do.

If you cannot see a difference then -----

Regards
DL

There are different kinds of "force". Having something illegal ad maybe be arrested for being naked or not wearing a pointy hat on a Tuesday (or whatever the arbitrary social standard is) is not the same as honor killing.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:46 pm Force by what means?

I appreciate it when others wear clothing rather than running around naked.

I think the application of force is the main issue.

I prefer to dine clothed, and around those that are clothed as well. But if someone who prefers to dine nude opened an establishment where patrons were encouraged to dine sans clothing, so be it. I just would not be a guest. Either establishment has the right to ask patrons to adhere to their dress code, and the right to use force if necessary to remove those who wish only to go against what the owner/patrons have deemed acceptable.

The difference between the nudi restaurant and an entire country is that it is very easy and reasonable to choose another place to eat, much more difficult to choose a place to be born in and live.

Forcing anyone to wear/not wear any article of clothing by threat of gun/cage doesn't seem moral at all to me.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:29 pm The difference between the nudi restaurant and an entire country is that it is very easy and reasonable to choose another place to eat, much more difficult to choose a place to be born in and live.

Well, it could be that everybody in the country didn't allow naked people into their establishments. So, de facto, you're forced to wear clothes (at least when you go shopping, go to work, go to eat, etc.). That's probably a better way of doing it than passing a law to force it, but still another kind of force in practice (just a cultural one).

As to wearing clothes on public streets, it's hard to show that there's the same level of harm there in choosing to be nude vs. something like smoking (where people will get cancer from your second hand smoke). Nobody is going to get eye cancer from seeing dangly bits. However, a rare naked person could cause traffic accidents (it may be similar to the "not yelling fire in a theater" rule).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:29 pm There are different kinds of "force". Having something illegal ad maybe be arrested for being naked or not wearing a pointy hat on a Tuesday (or whatever the arbitrary social standard is) is not the same as honor killing.

This is why I put, "I believe that obliging people to submit to any political, social or religious norm, --- without a just cause, --- is immoral."

Without a just cause is the key phrase.

Regards
DL

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:29 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:46 pm Force by what means?

I appreciate it when others wear clothing rather than running around naked.

I think the application of force is the main issue.

I prefer to dine clothed, and around those that are clothed as well. But if someone who prefers to dine nude opened an establishment where patrons were encouraged to dine sans clothing, so be it. I just would not be a guest. Either establishment has the right to ask patrons to adhere to their dress code, and the right to use force if necessary to remove those who wish only to go against what the owner/patrons have deemed acceptable.

The difference between the nudi restaurant and an entire country is that it is very easy and reasonable to choose another place to eat, much more difficult to choose a place to be born in and live.

Forcing anyone to wear/not wear any article of clothing by threat of gun/cage doesn't seem moral at all to me.

Prude.

A meal in a naked place would be quite entertaining, eh, perhaps disgusting.

Just kidding.

I agree with your position.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:54 am This is why I put, "I believe that obliging people to submit to any political, social or religious norm, --- without a just cause, --- is immoral."

Without a just cause is the key phrase.

Regards
DL

Is there really a just cause to requiring people to wear clothes beyond "other people don't like it when they're naked"? Do you think other people's actions as a consequence inherently count?

And if we look at the immediate danger of, say, car crashes (which result from the actions of others, stemming from the attitudes and limitations of the drivers), can we not look at the immediate danger of terrorism or the woman being raped and killed by conservative men if she does not wear the hijab?

Consequences are consequences, and if they are severe due to the actions of others (whether distraction while driving or a cultural impetus to honor kill) you have to ask when that justifies restriction.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:29 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:54 am This is why I put, "I believe that obliging people to submit to any political, social or religious norm, --- without a just cause, --- is immoral."

Without a just cause is the key phrase.

Regards
DL

Is there really a just cause to requiring people to wear clothes beyond "other people don't like it when they're naked"? Do you think other people's actions as a consequence inherently count?

Nakedness is a safety issue on the streets, but not in a nudist camp. There is a just cause for restrictions in the former but not the latter. Consequences thus matter.

And if we look at the immediate danger of, say, car crashes (which result from the actions of others, stemming from the attitudes and limitations of the drivers), can we not look at the immediate danger of terrorism or the woman being raped and killed by conservative men if she does not wear the hijab?

Absolutely. Beginning with the 5,000 yearly murders that are not justified by the Muslim holy books.

Consequences are consequences, and if they are severe due to the actions of others (whether distraction while driving or a cultural impetus to honor kill) you have to ask when that justifies restriction.

One would have to, yes, if one cares about the damage and consequences. One of which, in free countries, the dominance of men over women who should be enjoying the freedoms that country offers. Slavery in a free land is not kosher.

Regards
DL