Feinberg is mistaken in supposing that most people consider public nudity or public married intercourse immoral "precisely because they offend those who witness them." Moral conservatives, and other nonliberals, do, in fact, consider public nudity and public married intercourse to be "inherently wicked" regardless of whether they offend anyone. Of course, they do not consider nudity or marital intercourse to be inherently wicked. But they do consider public nudity and public intercourse to be wicked—even in circumstances where all the members of the relevant public hold "sexually liberated" attitudes and are therefore unoffended by public nudity and intercourse. Thus, moral conservatives consider public nudity immoral even on designated nude beaches where, presumably, no one present is in danger of being offended. The reason they consider public nudity immoral—regardless of whether it gives offense—is that it is, "in its essential nature," immodest. And immodesty is, in their view, immoral.
(Robert P. George, "Moralistic Liberalism and Legal Moralism," review of Harmless Wrongdoing: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, by Joel Feinberg, Michigan Law Review 88 [May 1990]: 1415-29, at 1422 [italics in original])
