Is it ethical to include attractiveness as a measure of human value?

[Soup Sammiches]

Who defines ugly?

I do. Now just send me some nudes and I can let you know how you rank.

 

[Jex]

Physiognomy never lies.

 

[draggs]

No it isn't, which doesn't mean a damn thing

 

[Catgirl Tyranid]

When your younger your looks don't have any moral weight, but as you get older you get the body that you deserve.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Attractiveness has nothing to do with human value, some of the hottest chicks on Earth belong in a woodchipper while some of the ugliest are saints.

Attractiveness should only factor into value as a mate or for a modeling career, that's basically all.

 

[The best and greatest]

That's essentially the question, yes.

Then congratulations he just gave you your answer. That wasn't so hard was it?

 

[Xev]

That +1 charisma should count for something

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Then congratulations he just gave you your answer. That wasn't so hard was it?

On the contrary, my melanated friend.
When you ask someone "would you like fries with that?" is "it depends if I like fries" an acceptable answer?

 

[The best and greatest]

On the contrary, my melanated friend.
When you ask someone "would you like fries with that?" is "it depends if I like fries" an acceptable answer?

Except "Would you like fries with that" isn't a torturously contrived hypothetical. Its a direct question who's answer bares an immediate material consequence.
So the real comparison would be:

"Would you hypothetically want fries with that?"
"Depends on if I like fries."

/Thread

 

[Chunky Salsa]

Attractiveness has nothing to do with human value, some of the hottest chicks on Earth belong in a woodchipper while some of the ugliest are saints.

Attractiveness should only factor into value as a mate or for a modeling career, that's basically all.

Ugly hands wrote this.

But nah for real, unless you're a fatty or a cripple, pretty much a spot on take.

 

[DickMain]

To paraphrase Nietzsche (because I forget the quote)
No one cares when you crush a cockroach, everyone cares when you rip off the wings of a butterfly. Morality and aesthetics are linked.

Roaches form complex societies with unique dialects per-colony, butterflies live, like, a month, and Nietzche wanted to fuck his sister. Beauty is a matter of perspective.

 

[Meriasek]

Total uggo death now

 

[Tablet County]

On the contrary, my melanated friend.
When you ask someone "would you like fries with that?" is "it depends if I like fries" an acceptable answer?

I think my answer was pretty unambiguous.

Roaches form complex societies with unique dialects per-colony, butterflies live, like, a month, and Nietzche wanted to fuck his sister. Beauty is a matter of perspective.

Too bad he was a last man and not an ubermensch. Then he could've fucked his sister without a concern for outdated morality.

 

[Fire Flight]

Is attractiveness better than unattractiveness? Yes.

Are attractive people worth more morally than unattractive people? No.

Should ugliness be glorified like how it is in modern culture? No.

 

[Flagstaff AZ]

This all falls apart when you realize that King Cobra is a real stand-up guy, despite being a genetic abomination who looks like quasimodo.

Anecdotal
Brainlets can't argue

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

This is how you end up like South Korea where normal looking people need to get plastic surgery to get a job.

 

[MadStan]

So I assume we're also supposed to be pretending that attractiveness isn't an indicator of physical/genetic health and reproductive capacity?
Either way, what would be the alternative more ethical option, to flip a coin?

If there are two people who are functionally exactly the same in every other way and one happens to be more pleasant to look at, then keep that one...unless they're your same sex and the idea is to reduce competition, then I guess you could try to eliminate the more attractive one. That's a strategic rather than ethical choice though.


Counterpoint: is there really any reason to go on living if you're ugly?

Then the ugly people will reproduce and create more ugly people. It's just not an ideal scenario.

It is a myth attractive people have attractive children. There are countless examples, countless. It’s a lottery. Go look at the parents do every good looking guy and gal in the movies pre 1980 and they had good and bad looking parents.

And I’ve seen too many examples of it going both ways for anyone to claim two good looking people automatically have good looking children, it just isn’t true.

 

[sadbird]

I would pick to keep the ugly one. One less person to compete with me.

 

[Black Spruce]

In the future, you want your offspring to have the best chance at surviving. I would probably rescue the ugly person. The ugly person is more likely to have ugly offspring, so my own offspring will be less trusting of them, as being good looking gives you a halo effect that allows you to get away with a lot more without attracting suspicion. So if the ugly survivor's ugly offspring get up to something nefarious, my offspring will be more likely to recognize it than if if were the good looking survivor's offspring.

 

[Brightstar777]

Whether it is ethical or not we are doing it subconsciously anyway, this is reality.
good looking people are high value, looks is value in itself, just don't treat someone based on his looks alone and you are ethically fine.