Crazy For Feet Forum

I read this article and thought people here would find it interesting. What are your thoughts? Would someone in this situation have a moral responsibility do disclose their foot fetish?

https://verdict.justia.com/2016/03/16/d ... o-disclose

No disclosure responsibility. It would be like the Nazis requiring yellow stars on Jews' clothing. Instead customers of the shoe store should realize that foot fetishes are widespread and it is possible some salespeople took the jobs to be near feet. If a particular salesperson is professional in behavior, there is no need to know if that particular person has a foot fetish. If a potential customer has a fear of or distaste for foot fetishists, they can buy their shoes at self-service stores or order online or from catalogs. Does the customer who DOES want to be served by a foot fetishist have an obligation to disclose this fact?

If a shoe salesperson would have a moral obligation to disclose this to customers, the person would also have a moral obligation to disclose it in any situation where feet could be seen and may as well be wearing a sign around his neck, saying "Pervert." The person would have to disclose in airports, train stations, on buses, at theaters, in restaurants, basically everywhere but home (and what if the person had not disclosed to family?). The whole concept is ridiculous.

Obviously someone who has had a bad experience with a foot fetishist to write such a harsh worthless article. This is no different than a child molestor who deals with kids? Or someone who works in a nail salon do they have hand/foot fetish? NO one has to reveal their private fetishes just to please a few.This person is a woman with just too much time on her hands

This was an atrociously written piece, not because the question isn't worth raising, but because, quite frankly, the author of this article simply lacks the intellectual skills to discuss it insightfully or even to clearly frame exactly what the "moral quandry" is supposed to be -let alone argue it one way or the other. She doesn't provide the faintest hint as to what broader meta-ethical precepts might serve as a foundation for any "responsibility to disclose" and though I could certainly suggest some, that was her job and I'm not going to do it for her.

Her entire article can be wholly reduced, without the slightest loss of substance or subtlety, to the question, "Does the fact that some people would find some of your thoughts 'creepy' if they had access to them render them morally objectionable, and if so does this thrust upon you the obligation to therefore grant them public access to certain of your private thoughts?"

The article could be exactly that short and lose nothing, and in fact this is being charitable, since at no point does she come anywhere close to the simple clarity and specificity of what I just wrote.

According to the by-line, she's a lawyer by training, and boy it shows.
Or does it?
I was under the impression that most law schools require at least a smattering of moral philosophy and propositional logic. If she ever took any such courses she conceals it well.

Oh, and another thing; this article is so gracelessly written even in terms of sheer wordcraft that it fails utterly even on the author's home ground of supposed expertise: rhetoric.

As for my position, I pretty much agree with FeetureFeature.
If you take this "responsibility" seriously, define it clearly, and apply it consistently, there's no just way you're ever finally getting to the edge of continually expanding boundary conditions.

Notice she doesn't bring up if a lesbian worked in a shoe store or ladies apparel store or even a mens store she couldn't be a fetishist either?