Since the I am going to school for photography I have to deal with a lot of nudity in the name of art. Recently I had an assignment that dealt with the ethics of nudity.
We had to read this artcle:
A Semi-Nude Minor? In The Times?
Dealing with these images:
and then answer several questions. One of them being this:
"...what do you think is the most “ethical”
decision for the New York Times regarding the publication of these images?"
Here is my answer:
You can not have morals and ethics without a foundation for right and wrong. You can not define right and wrong without God. A study of God's word will show that God clearly intends nudity to only be right between husband and wife. The images of Ali have been defended in the name of art and criticized because of Ali's age. Age and art do not change God's law. A society that allows nudity beyond the confines of a husband/wife relationship has already decided that they art outside of God's law. They have decided right and wrong is whatever each person chooses for themselves. This society, our society, has moved from protecting morality to merely regulating it. Our society has deemed that it is acceptable for a person above the age of 18 to pose nude if they so desire. Since right and wrong in our society is not based on truth, but instead arbitrary, there is no rational ethical reason that T magazine should not print images of semi-nude minors.
I know I did not actually use scripture in my answer. I had to keep this short and I was more concerned with the idea of absolute right and wrong.