My own opinion of the narrative is that it is a metaphorical description of the advent of human conscious self-awareness. Animals, which lack conscious self-awareness, do not act either morally nor immorally, but instinctively and amorally, in response to a combination of genetically imprinted instincts, behavioral conditioning from past experiences, and the apprehension of presently impinging stimuli.

Humans, on the other hand, being self-consciously aware, can abstractly reflect upon their circumstances, and freely choose individual and different responses that are not bound to their identities as members of species with genetically programmed reactions, but instead are a consequence of our personal identities as individual consciousnesses.

The nakedness angle fits in here, too; the moment that we became aware of ourselves as possessing individual minds and thoughts, similar with (because we are all human beings possessing existential, hitorical, linguistic and cultural commonalities with others around us) but not identical to the thoughts of others (because we have different personal histories that inform them), the contents of which we filter before making (only some of) them public through interpersonal discourse, we also became aware of ourselves as possessing individual bodies, naked to the gazes of others who are similar with (because we are all configurational homo sapiens) but not identical to ourselves (due to different genetics, ages, sexes, and configurationally shaping histories). In a way, the selective concealment and elaborate accentuations of our bodies - modesty and vanity (cosmetics) - is an isomorphism of the selective concealment and elaborate misrepresentation of our opinions - discretion and braggadocio and mendacity (lying).