Objectively, clothing serves the purpose of protecting a human being from the environment one finds himself in. Having said that, there are some things that I'd just rather not see.

Moral standard? No. It's a social standard. It could be argued that society derived that standard from its moral structure (burqa, penis sheath, etc.). Depending on where you are and the people of the society around you, a certain amount of attire, or lack of attire, is considered the norm and acceptable (moral?).

When in Rome...

Nothing is immoral unless it harms someone. Otherwise it is simply a social convention.

Clothing is NOT a moral subject. It is a cultural subject. Nudity has nothing to do with sex. It is basically a question of whether one wants to not feel isolated from a community that he is living in. Case in point. Are nudists resorts. There is not a problem with rape or other type problems as in clothed societies. The clothed people are the ones who stand out and do not fit into their culture.

Excuse me, I do not think it is right to expose
sexually private parts in public, either genitals or
breasts, making public and common that which
should be held private and sacred.-- Not saying
that there should be a law about it, except as it
might also be harmful to children if done on the
open street.--And, in some contexts, it could
perhaps rationally be interpreted as a threat,
even if it were exposure to an adult.
---I also do not think it is right to make
it public in the case of photographs or
films (though drawings/paintings/sculp-
tures might be different,being imagin-
ary).--Photographs in the case of
evidence in a rape case would be
different, of course, as the main damage has al-
ready been done.--And I don't care
if people consider me a Victorian
prude.

I don't think it is a moral issue; rather, it speaks to one's taste and common sense--or lack thereof. One of my many mottos is "Don't flaunt one's flaws."

The only problem with nudity is that it is a distraction. If the person is beautiful, people walking into lampposts and each other, or cars driving up a sidewalk may hurt someone. On the other hand, the way most of us look, most people will look away which can also be a hazard. In my case, what with saggy skin and gravity, I should wear a burqua in public but I don't, proudly displaying my age and when anyone stares, I tell them, "See what you've got to look forward to."

Other than that, dress codes are silly and not needed. However seeing a man or woman dressed to the nines is a pleasant experience regardless of physical beauty since good clothes worn well always enhances appearance.

All the Abrahamic religions believe it is immoral.

In this country we wear clothes. It's as simple as that. There are probably countries where people wear nothing at all...fine. There are big dollars in the clothing industry. My husband actually thinks that I am keeping Talbots in business, and being the capitalist that I am, I'm happy to do my part.. And Zenphany is right, there are some things that I'd rather not see.

I dont think your clothing or lack of it is anyone elses business. You should be able to do what you want. That said, covering certain parts of the body might be something that a person would want to do on their own for any number of personal reasons- but it shoudl be his/her choice.

It won't matter if people wear clothes, or not. Everyone will be playing Pokemon GO and won't even see you, anyway.

I wouldn't morally judge someone by his/her clothing or lack of it except for practical reasons. For example, someone driving a truck without shoes on may present a hazard to others on the road.

When I saw this headline the context I thought of was employment -- some employer wanted his staff to dress more formally than they felt was necessary. That is not really a moral issue. The employer should be free to have what rules he wants -- but there are cases where it's enough of a burden that it should be negotiated. (The recent case covered in media, where a dozen new hires petitioned the boss to get rid of a dress code and were fired for it, seems to me an overreaction and I don't approve, but that's a "cultural libertarian" issue; morally the boss was right.)

Of course there is a moral standard for dressing codes. That's why we have the fashion police! :-)

My standards on this are the same as with pretty much everything: I really don't give a damn what people do, as long as they leave me alone.

There is a clear distinction between social convention and morality. Whose life is threatened from someone walking naked in public? No ones. Human life is the benchmark for all issues within morality. Social conventions are subjective. They vary from culture to culture and transform within a culture over time.

In most cultures it is considered immoral not to be covered perhaps part of this is because men are very visual about being stimulated to want sex and females can be thought of as 'offering' sex when they are naked and inviting a particular male or any male. Another good reason for covering up in public is simply to avoid contamination on surfaces shared by others. I do NOT want to sit where any naked butt has sat previous to mine. Hygiene and embarrassment aside where you have a culture that has many levels of what might be considered decent it is polite to defer to the more stringent code simply because the covered can always uncover when it is not intrusive but it does not work the other way. If a culture wants to set aside certain areas for this behavior it does make it easier to choose to participate or not in a public environment. For me I find the female form beautiful and attractive and like to view it but I think if I were seeing it all the time and in some certain cases it might be less attractive. As for a husband & wife in a committed relationship I can see where once you decide this is only for those involved it does make it more of a personal shared experience, this experience is only for you, not everyone it can be defining of a relationship. Another part of this choice is a desire for very personal intimate contact to be with someone who shares our personal values not just everyone. My oldest daughter had the opinion that even if you are in a committed relationship having sex with someone else was okay as long as you didn't really 'like' them. This didn't seem to work out as well as she had thought when allowing her 'mate' to have sex with others was then followed up with; 'well do you like her? then why are you doing with her again? why did you choose her and not me?
Last part of this choice is subjective, if you want to cover yourself completely or wear a string depends mostly on you then you have to decide where you will live to exercise those choices.
Back to nakedness. An interesting concept based on how we might have been raised and whether or not it has any value to not be naked. A small tribe in the Amazon forest wears only a string around their waist once they hit puberty, prior to this no string. Once they put on the string they don't take it off, if they do they fell 'naked and ashamed'. I wonder where the feeling comes from, perhaps it is more about being out of place because everyone has a string. I don't know if I personally ever want to be evaluated by strangers when I am naked. If I had a string perhaps I would be okay with it.
Should there be a dress code? When I have had a business I had one, you were expected to be at a certain standard of clothing if you were meeting the public, in sales. There was another when I was in construction that was more for safety - you don't want that getting caught in the lathe (imagine me pointing to the nether regions) - but people do feel more comfortable when others are dressed appropriately for a job.
I see no harm in having a dress code for your property or business or school and if others do not choose that code go where they are comfortable (there should be no public schools and you choose where you want your child to go).

A dress code or uniforms for SCHOOLS up college. This eliminates most peer pressure in clothing. I would make school uniforms a must for all public schools. There is learning and there is complaining at home for those that are more interested in what they wear than what they learn. Vote veteran someone that puts America B4 any party, we come from all backgrounds. Divide and conquer is what they do. End double standard,DC politician on Obamacare,SS mrpresident2016.com

A very long time ago I was watching something on TV about a nudist colony. It had a rule~
In order to sit in a chair or a stool where food and/or booze was served, a nudist was required to first place a towel there.
Their own towel. For sanitary reasons.
I think I'd rather wear a pair of pants than to have to carry around a towel around all day.
Hang it around the back of my neck? Naw!

The emperor has no clothes. Enjoy the vision, or not. No, I cannot argue on moral grounds. I can argue and have argued on acceptance of social standards (aka culture) related to "dress code" and in fact done away with "dress code" regulations in preference to common sense and what is detractive in a workplace environment (in MY opinion). But it's not a moral issue.

YES

Would seem situational, determined on a case by case basis. If within his/her culture this is normal and its a nude beach town then acceptable/true. If within his/her culture and its in the middle of say - a Billy Graham revival with families etc then not acceptable/false. If it's not within his/her culture and it is at the end of say a drunken pub crawl then - it's up for grabs on moral grounds but likely ends in a trip to the drunk tank which becomes more of a risk/reward evaluation - IMO.