Should the law forbid the representation of unseemly actions?

[Boojatta]

"Let it therefore be a duty of the rulers to see that there shall be nothing at all, statue or painting, that is a representation of unseemly actions, except those that are in the shrines of those gods to whom the law concedes the privilege of indecency."

Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII, Chapter 17

[Lil Missy]

1. Who gets to decide what is "unseemly"?

[baldguy]

2. The same people as always.

[RandomThoughts]

3. That is not a difficult topic.

There are two ways to decide what should be done, authoritarian by edict, or consensus by deliberation. Those seem to be the two ways of how society should think and feel on what is best or not as good for society to do.

So you could have a system where a single person makes a decision and everyone just follows that decision. Or a system where people learn from each other.

If every person is 51% good, and 49% bad, then any single person even if a bit better maybe 60% good, would only get you to 60% good. But if many people that are at 51% help each other think and feel on things, they take the good parts of each other and add them to themselves.

So millions of people at 51% to 60% good, finding the best in discussion and thought, cancel out the bad stuff since that is usually about an individual, and the group disagrees with those biases. Then while many people discuss things, the better result can move up and up, since they cancel out flaws of bias. That is the community versus individual argument.

And then society starts having people growing up with 70% and 80% good, as they learn from systems that have been of more good by people learning of each others good parts.


The individual has a big place and unique thinkers can postulate and add new ideas into the system, and in that individuality is important to help things, but at some point society has to look at the effects those cause, and not allow any individual to just think what they think is best is best. So protection of minority thought is also important, but it has to be able to argue or show its merit and if it can, it can then by educating the majority become the majority, not by secretly doing what the minority wants while lying to the majority of people. So again it is also about teaching and education and not using secrecy and deception.



Also societal thoughts on things, include teachings from peoples beliefs, since that is part of the adding of better ideas in many cases.

[Warpy]

4. Those with the bluest noses

and the most interest in perusing great quantities of it with pursed lips.

You know the ones, they generally keep the unseemly artists in business.

[DeSwiss]

5. Reverend Aristotle???

- I don't think I've ever heard of him. Is he Baptist???

[saltpoint]

6. The most authoritarian of gods would be unable to enforce such a law,

despite there having been all kinds of authoritarian gods who've tried, and all kinds of laws that are still on the books.

When clergy (of any stripe) starts yapping about unseemly this and unseemly that, I get the same censorious stink that wafts off any religious purist. I know when someone like Phyllis Schlaffly is nearby from the revolting scent of her stale perfume.

Permitting the gods and only the gods "the privilege of indecency" suggests that those same gods would be colossal failures as intercessories in the lives of mortals. Kind of a bummer, especially when those would be exactly the times you'd want a little godly intercession.

Aristotle thought that non-Greeks were 'barbarians.' Interestingly, his most famous pupil believed in his soldiers marrying women of other cultures in faraway lands. In the great big world the most grievous "indecency" is to deny that difference is decent.

[Ratty]

7. "Nobody has a right not to be offended" - Philip Pullman

Author of The Golden Compass and his upcoming book The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. Yes, that includes offensive depictions of Obama.

[charlie]

8. Someday soon

it'll be relatively inexpensive and easy to make realistic live action depictions of horrific stuff you couldn't imagine. Pedophilia, rape, snuff, and more. Without the use of actors, just software. We might accept new limits on free speech and press freedom when that happens.