Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Womble]

And now it is official: leftist inquisition is more Puritan than the Puritans

It is a painting that shows pubescent, naked nymphs tempting a handsome young man to his doom, but is it an erotic Victorian fantasy too far, and one which, in the current climate, is unsuitable and offensive to modern audiences?

Manchester Art Gallery has asked the question after removing John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings, from its walls. Postcards of the painting will be removed from sale in the shop.

The painting was taken down on Friday and replaced with a notice explaining that a temporary space had been left “to prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. Members of the public have stuck Post-it notes around the notice giving their reaction.

[Coco Pops]

And the art gallery event backfired on them. I don't think that was too well thought out.

[Gatefan1976]

And now it is official: leftist inquisition is more Puritan than the Puritans

It is a painting that shows pubescent, naked nymphs tempting a handsome young man to his doom, but is it an erotic Victorian fantasy too far, and one which, in the current climate, is unsuitable and offensive to modern audiences?

Manchester Art Gallery has asked the question after removing John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings, from its walls. Postcards of the painting will be removed from sale in the shop.

The painting was taken down on Friday and replaced with a notice explaining that a temporary space had been left “to prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. Members of the public have stuck Post-it notes around the notice giving their reaction.

Wow, did they burn the painting at the stake?
Stone it?
Did the restorer refuse to restore it because of their beliefs?

[Gatefan1976]

You're both missing the point. Why do you find discrimination based upon attractiveness more acceptable than that based on race, gender or anything else? Why does society as a whole? Why don't we have an equivalent of Martin Luthor King or Susan B Anthony? Why don't we have laws forbidding discrimination based upon appearance?

As I said before, there -are- people who do exactly what you are asking for, but as they are SJW snowflakes, they don't register on your bubble
let me requote myself

But it -is- being challenged, generally by the leftist SJW's you like to crap on for living in a fantasy world.
If YOU think it is wrong, perhaps you have some common ground with them, and perhaps instead of calling them SJW leftie snowflakes, it would be -more- productive to see what makes you the same, rather than what makes you different?

Your answer, assuming that "no one is doing anything" about it and that I was missing the point just goes to show you think that because -you- don't know it, it's not happening, or that if it's not in the -news-, nothing is happening. Given that one of your "go to" news organizations is Fox, that was run by a serial predator and used the exact same "hottie" reasoning to give women jobs, I don't think you actually care about this issue at all, it's just a convenient talking point.

Legal or not, do you find it ethically or morally acceptable?

Ethics and morals are not the same, in fact, in some ways they can be almost diametrically opposed positions. Morals are what you apply to you -personally-, ethics are what the business or profession you work for imposes on you. Lawyers have to defend all kinds of stuff I am sure (some) of them find morally reprehensible, but they are bound to a code of ethics.

Now, do -I personally- find it moral?
Nope, unless looks are a key job requirement.
I point that out because just like a skilled job, you need the skill to do the job. Unlike skills however, looks are more akin to a talent, they are innate, you either have the talent to be a model, or a writer, or a musician, or you don't, and unlike a pure skill that you can teach, talents are not teachable.

Is it ethical?
Well, given that business drives ethics, and ethics demand to do the best for the client, then in many ways, yes, it is ethical. "hotties" will get bums on seats, and bums on seats drives sales, and the goal of companies is sales. I would not employ a company that did not deliver the best results it could.

One is doing the "right" thing.
The other is doing the "effective" thing.

[Annoyed]

As I said before, there -are- people who do exactly what you are asking for, but as they are SJW snowflakes, they don't register on your bubble
let me requote myself

Your answer, assuming that "no one is doing anything" about it and that I was missing the point just goes to show you think that because -you- don't know it, it's not happening, or that if it's not in the -news-, nothing is happening. Given that one of your "go to" news organizations is Fox, that was run by a serial predator and used the exact same "hottie" reasoning to give women jobs, I don't think you actually care about this issue at all, it's just a convenient talking point.


Ethics and morals are not the same, in fact, in some ways they can be almost diametrically opposed positions. Morals are what you apply to you -personally-, ethics are what the business or profession you work for imposes on you. Lawyers have to defend all kinds of stuff I am sure (some) of them find morally reprehensible, but they are bound to a code of ethics.

Now, do -I personally- find it moral?
Nope, unless looks are a key job requirement.
I point that out because just like a skilled job, you need the skill to do the job. Unlike skills however, looks are more akin to a talent, they are innate, you either have the talent to be a model, or a writer, or a musician, or you don't, and unlike a pure skill that you can teach, talents are not teachable.

Is it ethical?
Well, given that business drives ethics, and ethics demand to do the best for the client, then in many ways, yes, it is ethical. "hotties" will get bums on seats, and bums on seats drives sales, and the goal of companies is sales. I would not employ a company that did not deliver the best results it could.

One is doing the "right" thing.
The other is doing the "effective" thing.

If a business made a practice of hiring whites only, that business would be up on charges of discrimination, violating labor laws and such, and they would likely be penalized to the point of going out of business. Clearly, that situation does not apply to those who are discriminated against for their attractiveness or lack thereof. So you can't make the claim that there is equal opposition to that discrimination as there is opposition to other forms.

As to whether it is right or wrong; you're saying that because the business claims that the hotties put more butts in seats, it is justified. How is that any different from the business owner in the past who chose to not hire blacks for precisely the same reason, he was afraid of losing sales? The shopkeeper who didn't want to put a black person behind the counter because he was afraid of scaring customers away? Or whatever foolish reason he put forth for discriminating?

[thekillman]

And the art gallery event backfired on them. I don't think that was too well thought out.

I'm mystified why a painting is such a big deal. Seems the "controversy" gave it more attention than a million-dollar ad campaign.

[thekillman]

Ethics and morals are not the same, in fact, in some ways they can be almost diametrically opposed positions. Morals are what you apply to you -personally-, ethics are what the business or profession you work for imposes on you.

No. Morality is about judging whether actions are right or wrong. Ethics are about rules, in order to create such behavior. Though in some moral and ethical systems, they are considered the same.

For instance, while it can be morally right for a doctor to let someone die, ethically it's wrong because of the "first do no harm" pledge. Even though the rules go one way, certain choices may go against those rules.

Furthermore, ethics and morals can differ between societies, and there's no real objective way to measure it. For instance, Utilitarians would think that if a girl adds value by being a pit girl, then there's nothing wrong. But ask a Socratian/Virtue ethics follower and they'd argue that it would be akin to whoring (IE selling one's body for profit), which is an undesirable character trait and so it's wrong.

[Gatefan1976]

If a business made a practice of hiring whites only, that business would be up on charges of discrimination, violating labor laws and such, and they would likely be penalized to the point of going out of business. Clearly, that situation does not apply to those who are discriminated against for their attractiveness or lack thereof. So you can't make the claim that there is equal opposition to that discrimination as there is opposition to other forms.

Good thing I never claimed it then, huh?

As to whether it is right or wrong; you're saying that because the business claims that the hotties put more butts in seats, it is justified. How is that any different from the business owner in the past who chose to not hire blacks for precisely the same reason, he was afraid of losing sales? The shopkeeper who didn't want to put a black person behind the counter because he was afraid of scaring customers away? Or whatever foolish reason he put forth for discriminating?

Distinctions mean nothing to you, do they?

[Gatefan1976]

No. Morality is about judging whether actions are right or wrong. Ethics are about rules, in order to create such behavior. Though in some moral and ethical systems, they are considered the same.


For instance, while it can be morally right for a doctor to let someone die, ethically it's wrong because of the "first do no harm" pledge. Even though the rules go one way, certain choices may go against those rules.

Furthermore, ethics and morals can differ between societies, and there's no real objective way to measure it. For instance, Utilitarians would think that if a girl adds value by being a pit girl, then there's nothing wrong. But ask a Socratian/Virtue ethics follower and they'd argue that it would be akin to whoring (IE selling one's body for profit), which is an undesirable character trait and so it's wrong.

Are you -sure- you meant to quote me?

[thekillman]

Are you -sure- you meant to quote me?

Yea, though i think i could've phrased my post clearer. But Ethics and Morality aren't all that different depending on who you ask, and they're certainly not a personal/professional distinction.

[Gatefan1976]

Yea, though i think i could've phrased my post clearer. But Ethics and Morality aren't all that different depending on who you ask, and they're certainly not a personal/professional distinction.

Would you agree that morality tends to be more "self driven" and Ethics are more "society driven"?

[aretood2]

Would you agree that morality tends to be more "self driven" and Ethics are more "society driven"?

No, that's a big huge no. Morality is not self driven at all. The whole impetus of developing morality is the social setting in which it develops. Morality is the judgement of what is good and what is bad. Much like the godwinphobic Thekillman said, Ethics is about a society attempting to nurture moral action through rules.

It's immoral for me to kill a baby, but ethics doesn't really come into play here.
It would be an in issue within the framework of an institution. Other than that, ethicists use those terms interchangeably at times.

[Gatefan1976]

No, that's a big huge no. Morality is not self driven at all. The whole impetus of developing morality is the social setting in which it develops. Morality is the judgement of what is good and what is bad. Much like the godwinphobic Thekillman said, Ethics is about a society attempting to nurture moral action through rules.

Poor choice of words.
What I mean is, a persons morality is through the lens of the self. Yes, you can get external idea's about what is moral or not, but what is moral for person A may not be for person B, it is -self determined-
Ethics on the other hand don't really care about your personal morality, they are more of a blanket thing, like the law.
Example:
I find the gun laws of the US -morally- wrong, but that will not change the law.
Annoyed finds nearly every form of abortion morally wrong, but THAT does not change the law either.
Is this clearer?

It's immoral for me to kill a baby, but ethics doesn't really come into play here.
It would be an in issue within the framework of an institution.

Exactly!

Other than that, ethicists use those terms interchangeably at times.

They may do, but they really should not. This might be of use:
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

[thekillman]

On a slightly unrelated note:

What is it about space flight that makes people suddenly super-conscious about cost?

[Annoyed]

On a slightly unrelated note:

What is it about space flight that makes people suddenly super-conscious about cost?

Many feel that that $ would be better spent wasted on Earth.