"Moralists" and "immoralists" aren't felicitous terms here. If "moralism" means someone who wants to tell other people what to do, then that applies to everyone, as even someone who holds that people shouldn't tell other people what to do is indeed telling people what to do. Furthermore, I've never heard of someone without any morality, and it's an ad hominem to call someone an immoralist or non-moralist just because they have a different morality. It is difficult to argue morality successfully, as people don't share fundamental moral intuitions, and it's possible for people to hold different moral beliefs with each one being internally consistent. But that's the problem here. The anti-nude photograph position isn't consistent. If one thinks that there shouldn't be public representations of nudity, then it doesn't matter if it a painting, sculpture of photograph. To rule out paintings but accept the others is completely ad hoc. To avoid that charge the critic would have to show that nude photographs are inherently less moral than sculptures, paintings..., and it's doubtful that a plausible argument along those lines is forthcoming.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
