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

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Imagine you must select one from two people to die. They both have the same exact personality but one is significantly more attractive than the other. Is it okay to, in what is otherwise a toss-up, always pick the prettier one to live?
If so, to what degree can any moral or other failings be compensated by attractiveness alone?

Dumb thoughts to consider:
People enjoy looking at attractive people more than unattractive ones, so the loss of a more attractive person may be greater than an unattractive one.
Attractive people generally live easier lives anyway, so perhaps letting the pretty one die can be seen as some sort of moral balance or something.
This question should be taken to apply more broadly than just the life or death scenario. It's just an extreme example.

To be clear: I'm asking from an ethical standpoint and not from any sort of human nature perspective.

 

[Flagstaff AZ]

Good looks reflect good genetics. Even if sometimes nature decides to be gay. See: Antlers.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

I do not know much about the subject personally, but what I do know is that Physiognomy is an older science for analyzing someone’s character through physical appearance. I do not know how accurate it is again, only that it fell out of favor in the 20th century.

It’s pretty simple. You see a fit person, they must be doing something right. You see a fat person, they probably have a thread here.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

No, but we'll probably keep doing it anyway.

 

[Tablet County]

If you believe that physical attractiveness is a moral good then yes. Maybe I'm just gay and poisoned by cultural marxism or whatever they're calling it this week but I believe that we're more than our appearances.
Of course, this is a drama site and the thunderdome set tends to be full of eugenecists, physiognomists, and phrenologists, so people's appearances are frequently used as a barometer for the content of someone's character.
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.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

If you believe that physical attractiveness is a moral good then yes

That's essentially the question, yes.

 

[Unique Username KF]

Attractiveness is not a moral good but assuming the two people were identical I would let the ugly one die due to lower genetic fitness.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

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.

Attractive people generally live easier lives anyway, so perhaps letting the pretty one die can be seen as some sort of moral balance or something.

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.

 

[The Last Stand]

Who defines ugly?

 

[Claude Sigma]

It's complex because while of course attractiveness is not a good or a bad in itself, us finding someone attractive or not is our natural way of trying to determine the quality of the individual.
As the studies on the topic have confirmed time and time again, visual attractiveness/beauty is correlated with IQ, correlated with wealth, correlated with health, etc.

In short, attractive people have better genes and are therefore objectively better reproductive partners, on average.

Now, and while taking all of this into account, can we make the shortcut that attractive people are more valuable than less attractive people? In a sense, yes, obviously, they are BETTER, after all.
But then morally, should a better person have more value than someone else? Or should we give exact same value to everyone, including ugly, short, poor, disformed and infertile people? It's a philosophical question, and everyone is free to have his own answer.

To some extent I'm a eugenicist, but I'm not going to treat you better or worse because you're attractive or not, I'm not looking for a mate so it doesn't matter to me.

Who defines ugly?

Instinctive human nature. Most things we universally consider attractive or ugly are external signs of good genes and health.
Healthy hair, healthy skin, healthy fingernails, facial symmetry, height and stature for men, wide hips in women, etc.

 

[We Are The Witches]

I've already and recently given my opinion on what morality is, and what would make something "good" or "bad", but in essence it comes down to subjective criteria.

Now that we have that, knowing that it's akin to an opinion, mine is no more "truer" than yours, but you're asking me for my view.

So in my view, assuming you're talking about conventionally attractive people (since beauty is subjective, so that would be what most humans perceive as more attractive), then the answer to the poll would be "indifferent".
Without knowing how they are, how they think or how they behave, but just based on conventional attractiveness, I do not place more moral value on either/neither gets more moral consideration just based on that.

In your trolley-problem type of question, both are essentially the same in regards to what I should consider for choosing one to die, so would be a nonsensical question to me, like making me choose between random-person-1 and random-person-2.

Then the next thing you mention: just because more people would like to look at someone attractive than someone who isn't, it does not justify to give them the preference, specially when we're talking about the value of life.
Maybe more people would rather look at a "normal" white girl than a "normal" black girl (and I'm assuming statistically, that's true in most of the west), this would not give you any justification for choosing the black girl to die.

And the same extends to their quality of life aspect you mention afterwards, "attractive" people often have a better quality of life because of society (i.e: because of most others, just like in the previous example, what would make the change), but like then, it does not mean that it gives it higher value when talking about human life or basic rights.

When taking the approach more broadly, instead of an extreme life-or-death scenario, such as: would be moral to purposefully choose the "prettier" one over the "normal" one, regardless of skill, for a job that does not realistically require them to have any physical characteristic (like being an actor/actress for a specific role)? It wouldn't.
I find that discrimination mildly (in some cases greatly) immoral under my point of view, they both deserve to have a chance at being chosen for this job by considering pertinent criteria, like their skill and aptitude, and not have impertinent criteria, such as their facial structure/etc as an obstacle.

 

[Professor G. Raff]

In our modern version of society, no. I think most people would agree with that general premise that your value as a human being cannot be defined by your looks. That is only true when we live in a society that is comfortable enough to worry about higher level concepts of morality when little is at stake however.

In your scenario where 2 people are exactly the same but for attractiveness, when everything is stripped away but that difference, I think the majority would absolutely choose the more attractive person. It's a bit of an unfair scenario though because at that point attractiveness becomes an actual meaningful difference where you don't have to mentally contend with differences in personality and things like 'person x has 3 kids to take care of' and other moral quandaries. At a base instinctual level humans are animals and we instinctively seek what we perceive as the better option for species continuation - which is the attractive person. However, in our current culture there absolutely will be a much higher percentage of people than in all previous history who would pick the ugly person purposely either out of jealousy and self-loathing or because they buy into the whole equity Marxism stuff. If these types had any personal stake though (aka, you have sex with the pick rather than your involvement being done after the choice is made) they would absolutely shed this attitude and pick the more attractive person because this morality is utterly shallow without a collective to keep it maintained.

While the morality aspect has an obvious correct answer to us it hasn't been that way for the vast majority of human history and will go back to rarely being an after-thought if comfortable society ever regresses.

 

[KittyGremlin]

kill them both lol

 

[Executive Petrel]

Attractive means good genes and more likely to reproduce and create healthy offspring. For biological purpose it's the only trait that matters. It's over for sub 4 subhumans

 

[Trump's Chosen]

I would like to remind all the uggos that attractive people are also smarter, because people with the intelligence boosting genes, had the intelligence to plan and achieve to mate with more beautiful people.

 

[Temmie]

Attractive means good genes

There's no guarantee of that when it comes to inherited health conditions, but there is some truth in it.

For biological purpose it's the only trait that matters.

Ignoring laws and society? Strength matters more. Who cares if you're the best looking if you can just kill your competition.

Khan didn't get 16 million descendants by being beautiful, he did it via rape and murder.

 

[Dysnomia]

Who defines ugly?

It's going to vary from culture to culture and can even be different depending on generations. But you can single out a few key traits like facial symmetry. No one is 100% symmetrical. But a lack of glaring asymmetry is seen as a sign of acceptable genetics and good health.

But unattractive people are not less valuable than attractive people. That's absurd. A person's value cannot be totaled based on something as shallow as looks. Even a deformed person has valueRemember that someone has to live in that body and that body is their reality. Their life isn't less important than some 10/10 hottie. Beauty is also fleeting. Just like youth it does not last forever. So placing a high amount of value on a trait that only lasts for a small portion of your life is ridiculous. It's something humans need to work past if we want to better outselves.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

It's hilarious people think there is an objective standard of "attractiveness" outside the most extreme forms of deformity.

Your preferred jerk-off material is 100% culturally influenced, sorry guys.

 

[Underperforming]

Moral value comes from the imbodied practice of virtues. These could include things such as courage, trustworthiness, courtesy, and so on. Many of these virtues require practice and physical and mental exercise. Therefore, it could be said that, in some cases, an attractive person could have more observable moral worth insomuch that they are practicing virtuous behaviors. Examples: A brave and heroic person is physically prepared and able to act in a situation. A courteous person is one that keeps himself physically clean to not offend others. Though sometimes it is not popular to do the right thing. If attractiveness, and to an extent popularity, is the standard, it is easier to imbody vices.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

Yes. People think outstanding when they think attractive, but the simple fact of the matter is that 99% of people look fine if they take proper care of themselves. There are birth defects and deformities, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Like trying to say humans don't have 10 fingers because some people don't. And it's not just about hygiene either, your mental health, moral, intellectual, and emotional wellbeing most certainly reflect on your appearance and mannerisms. My example being pajeets. Generally speaking, when someone is physically repulsive, they aren't a good person. (it also doesn't help that people's brains are fried on porn so 'attractive' means Belle Delphine.)