To summarize: On page 297 Nussbaum begins discussing her take on Thomas Nagel's "Two-Faces" of society, the public and the private. The public (for regular social interaction), Nagel argued, must be separated from personal tastes and desires so as to not disrupt society... as not all personal desires are universally admired nor conductive to good social relations. Nussbaum express her concern that this argument from Nagel inherently dismisses minority tastes while not dismissing majority tastes... and as such is inherently oppressive to groups like religious minorities, gays/lesbians, and the disabled.
I think I largely agree with Nussbaum that there is that danger hidden in Nagel's "Two-Faces". However I think, if properly modified, what Nagel presents (which was by no means unique in the history of political philosophy) is still incredibly valuable, and we would be mistaken to abandon the public-private distinction entirely.
For example, while I agree with Nussbaum that many things people find objectionable in public--such as two men kissing or topless women--we probably should not find so objectionable and thus not outlaw, there are still plenty of things that are probably best kept private for the reasons Nagel addresses.
If two students walked into Myrin library tomorrow, staked out a couch in the lobby, and began having sex... there are plenty of legitimate public reasons why we would want to stop that. It would be distracting to students... or it could get bodily-fluids over publicly used furniture.
This is obviously a strong (and kind of outlandish) objection... but I think it illustrates that there must be something salvageable in Nagel's "Two-Faces", and that there are some things that we should outlaw in public, specifically for public well being.
This list of things can't be particularly large--again I agree with much of what Nussbaum has to offer-- but that list is there and Nagel has some value here.
I agree with you for the most part. I do believe there is something salvageable in Nagel's "Two Faces" I think you are being to lax on what can be included though. Now while I know its just an example the students having sex in Myrin Library is a bad example. As far as distraction goes if sex was a part of the public face this shouldn't really be anymore distracting than someone singing in Myrin. Which you can't do for that very reason. If sex was part of the public face it would still be restricted from places where it was disruptive to the intended environment. But sex could still be had on the lawn for instance or Paisley beach without need for restriction.
ReplyDeleteEthan pointed out in his post that sex is a very intimate thing and should therefore be remain part of the private face. I disagree with this reasoning as well. People don't always treat sex as an intimate thing and if it is largely treated as intimate because its part of the private face. One can argue that its intimacy is worth preserving be keeping it in the private face but not that leaving it there is necessary for that reason.
I think avoiding the intimacy of knowing everyone too well is worth preserving. You don't really need to see a guy watch bestiality porn or something in Starbucks. Certain things that we view as the other are in my opinion twisted enough to be worth describing that way. That sounds kind of brutal but i do think its true. Somethings simply aren't meant to be the norm because they are detrimental to us as a species.
I also think that certain things are still worth keeping private due to effects on the public. Public sex would have a profound effect on children's development for instance. I'm not arguing that this specifically is a problem (I don't know enough about child psychology to do so) but I think that there are a number of topics which fit into such a category.