It is a tough call but I'm with the mountain strippers

Such an interesting question for those of us who like our ethics defined by neat ideology. Should we disapprove or celebrate the British tourists who got their kit off on top of the sacred Malaysian mountain this week?

Well where do you stand? What was your instinctive reaction?

We detest rudeness. We would never ourselves offend a host nation's cultural sensibilities while abroad. Being polite is an underexplored ethical philosophy but one which pretty much takes you most of the way through leading a good life. I value it.

However, it was just a bit of fun by young people. No-one was really hurt and it brought a burst of exuberant joy into the total of the world's happiness.

And of course it's a bit funny because it involves boobs and bottoms.

Put simply we have a battle here between libertarians (who was actually harmed?) and romantics (doing something silly in the moment for the experience alone) versus conservatism (it is so because of convention alone) and faith (the spirits live on the mountain).

Versus irrational forces

A guide to form all views is often who the opposition is. You don't need to think for yourself if the Daily Mail hates something, it's probably an excellent idea. In this case we have a government minister who said the strippers' actions caused an earthquake. Yes, he actually did say that. That sort of terrifying irrationality from someone in charge of a country cannot be condoned. 

I have no truck with postmodern cultural relativism. That way lies FGM and Isis. There is the truth and there is untruth.

I'm British and so accept the cultural bias my views contain. It wasn't my temple that was offended. I accept I would always more likely side with the bottom-outers. To do so on gut feeling would be amiss, to do so based on considering strands of ethical philosophy if different. 

Who would you rather be friends with or indeed ask to run your country? The irrational and joyless or someone who literally climbs mountains wants to experience the romantic thrill of mild naughtiness?

But don't get your willy out in my house!

The politics of Marvellous

The enjoyable BBC TV film Marvellous could be claimed by various political ideologies.

If you haven't seen it, it's the uplifting story a man with learning difficulties, 'a bit slow on the uptake' as his mum says. He has an eventful time of it, jobs as a clown and kit man for Stoke City. He meets Ken Dodd and Tony Benn. A successful, friend filled life making people around him happy.

I think individualists would claim him for their own. Despite his barriers, he hitchhikes, talks to people, charms his way into jobs and makes things happen for himself. Triumph of personal responsibility, of Tebbit's get on your bike theory.

However none of this would be possible without the support of civil society. The church look out for him, when the circus abandons him in Scotland he just walks to the nearest church and asked for a lift back to Stoke. Stoke City provide meaning, employment, friendship and belonging. 

These institutions are not set up by the state, they don't exist for profit. These are the community organisations which fill the gaps and define a place (MK Dons hang your heads). 

The state isn't mentioned much apart from the NHS. Housing benefit probably doesn't fit in the narrative arc but it's hard to imagine how he'd've got by on purely community support. 

Ultimately family (his mum) does the lion's share.

While statists, communitarians, libertarians and mums might all lay claim to his success, he actually only thrives because all four of agencies are present in his life. One fills the gaps of the other. Society requires you to get off your own arse as well as properly organised and funded services. You also need people to look out for you and the social glue of voluntary institutions.