Good looks as a rational value

[Ifat Glassman]

Wow, this has certainly evolved into a big discussion.

Regarding finding beauty appealing even when it does not communicate a moral character - It is normal to enjoy and find physical beauty attractive because (like in art) it is an expression of perfection and can serve as an expression of spiritual perfection since the spiritual only has expression through the material things. Art testifies to that - the heroes of romantic art are physically appealing, not just morally appealing precisely because of this need of integration.

However, if one is attracted to a person based on nothing more than their looks then they are projecting a certain character onto them. I'm sure many can testify that attraction to a beautiful body cannot outlast the discovery of a corrupt spirit (unless one finds a corrupt spirit a turn on, but I am not talking about that).

In any case... I'll be leaving the discussion for now.

[Eiuol]

I assumed based on the nature of what beauty and morality are as concepts. Morality is the code of values that guides our choices and actions. A value is that which benefits the individual whom is valuing. Something that is beautiful is precisely that which reflects values, i.e. that which is moral. Beauty is based upon morality and is, in itself, moral. Therefore, beauty is a moral concept. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant by "Beauty is not a moral concept," your statement is incorrect.

I am uncertain if I am willing to call beauty a moral concept. But I would label it as something similar to moral concepts. Beauty is something that can only be evaluated. It does not exist as an attribute of something. Beauty is a judgment of a particular aesthetic in a positive way, whatever that aesthetic may be. A positive judgment would be to say that whatever is you are judging is something valuable in a visual way. It is valuing something about the object. I think this is where any disagreement occurs. Some seem to be suggesting that beauty is something more than just a value judgment, that beauty is is an attribute of some entity much like green is an attribute of leaves. I don't think about it in that way one bit.

Establishing what is beautiful varies for whatever it is you are evaluating. Beauty in art is one thing, in people it is another. And in sunsets it is different still. No one can apply "principles of beauty" in the same way to all those categories. It is probably easiest to judge beauty in things not produced by humans: the things found in nature.

Why *should* anyone care and value something unchosen about a person? It is in the nature of humans to have volition. One should make judgments about a person based on choices and nothing else. It is *only* in this way my idea of beauty is a "moral concept". To say something is beautiful, you are saying that object is a positive value. Just as one should not say something unchosen is immoral, neither can one say something unchosen is ugly. Even still, if a person is ugly by the standard I've made very clear, they are not necessarily immoral. Why should I value or not value something visual about a person if they never chose it? Why say any humans are beautiful? If something simply is beautiful or is not, I would rather say all people are ugly and tigers are beautiful. The reason I do not judge beauty in tigers the same way I judge beauty in people is because volition is part of the nature of humans.

[Jake_Ellison]

I take your point. Maybe I should have phrased this "To call anything VISUAL, 'designed' by Nature, a rational value is puzzling..."

We are talking Beauty here, not air and food - how much does raw, physical, beauty (not man-made) actually have to do with furthering one's life?

It's irrelevant how much, it only matters that it does, to some more than to others. I appreciate harmony. You're arbitrarily excluding the 'visual and natural' from the category of things I should appreciate for their harmony, and I don't care. I still appreciate them, and the standard by which I appreciate them is still objective. Since harmony is something that clearly and objectively pleases humans in general, beauty, in all its forms, is undeniably a rational value.

If you wish to admit that now, then we can discuss where, in a person's hierarchy of values, should their or their partner's physical appearance rank, and at what point does the rational valuing of physical beauty becomes the irrational over-valuing of it, and how that spot in the hierarchy can change from person to person.

your posts, which imply there is such a thing as beauty where one thing is necessarily more beautiful than another.

Yes they do, and I stand by that. That's not intrinsicism. The suggestion that there aren't things that are necessarily more beautiful than others, would be subjectivism.

Some seem to be suggesting that beauty is something more than just a value judgment

You should rethink your premises. Beauty obviously doesn't fit into the category you're trying to force it into, so there's no point on insisting further that it does. It's not a value judgement. Something 'beautiful and valuable' is a value because it's beautiful, not beautiful because it's valuable.

that beauty is is an attribute of some entity much like green is an attribute of leaves.

It's not that either. Must be a third option. An esthetic evaluation.

One should make judgments about a person based on choices and nothing else.

What if I'm a coach in the NBA? How exactly am I gonna pick a team unless I'm allowed to judge how high a fella's head is from the ground?

[whYNOT]

You've made a persuasive argument, Jake Ellison, and I've been reconsidering my position.

Despite the randomness of Nature's "gifts" (why this face, and not that?), I admit that I'm starting to be more inclined to elevating natural Beauty to a place in my own hierarchy of objective value.

I suppose one could say that it doesn't matter how or why it came into being - it just is.

There are still some elements of subjectivism/intrincism I haven't dealt with yet.

Still thinking on it...

[Grames]

There are values and then there are benefits, as Tara Smith explains on page 84 of Viable Values

[Jake_Ellison]

There are values and then there are benefits, as Tara Smith explains on page 84 of Viable Values

Well, Rand defines value as that which one acts to gain OR keep. Even those examples Tara Smith gives must be recognized as value, and some amount of choice is required to keep them (for rain, you have to stay out of the desert, and a child has to hang around its parents, he can't run away and still benefit from the food and clothing). There doesn't seem to be a definite distinction, only one in the degree of action required to gain or keep something.

Also, I browsed ahead a few pages, and she doesn't seem to do anything with the distinction. I assume you've read the whole book, so if you know of further mentions of this concept "benefits", please point me in the right direction.

[Grames]

What she does with it is rule out objects of action that are not beneficial from being values. The other distinction of 'value' from the genus 'benefit' is that value must be understood by consciousness as a result of a logical process. One can benefit unknowingly, but one cannot value unknowingly.

The relation to beauty is, people can benefit from beauty subconsciously without considering it. I say this because beauty is at least partly objective, people do agree to a remarkable extent what beauty is when they consider it. Mindfulness is better than ignorance, so people should consider beauty and appreciate it when they come across it to get more out of it.

[Jake_Ellison]

What she does with it is rule out objects of action that are not beneficial from being values. The other distinction of 'value' from the genus 'benefit' is that value must be understood by consciousness as a result of a logical process. One can benefit unknowingly, but one cannot value unknowingly.

Ok, makes sense now, and that's a great point.

[asherwolf]

I may just be totally lost, but, I'm deeply disturbed by the idea that Objectivism would paint a more "objectively beautiful" person (naked, as they are genetically) as more moral. Or in any application like it, say as in the mentally challenged example, as mental handicaps (including mental illness) could be considered intellectually ugly. Are some people here actually saying that a 'more objectively beautiful' person by purpose of genetics alone is actually more moral, or that a genius is somehow more moral when compared to 'objectively ugly' people or those of sub-optimal intelligence?

And if moral isn't the right word, am I still safe to assume that we are then talking about 'objectively valuable' as moral ideals?

I am not turning a blind eye to the fact that certain aspects of individuals can be more appealing than others in some cases, particularly those involving a great intellect, or attractive features, but I will never accept that somehow dwarfs, hunchbacks, Down's Syndrome sufferers, fat people suffering from thyroid imbalances, and those with below average IQs are somehow less valuable (or able to be valued) as human beings simply because they don't conform to some artistic standard. That's some serious context dropping.

To use an example of Atlas Shrugged: Dagny was described in one section (and no, I can't cite it, sorry) as not being particularly beautiful except for having a great set of legs. Does that make her less able to be valued than Lillian who in one section was described as very pretty except for eyes that did not match her face?

I knew a kid who had big eyes, suffered from seizures, and couldn't talk because of a lack of control over his mouth and a constant stream of drool running down his shirt. He was an absolutely amazing person, and I would never trade him for some more 'objectively beautiful' version of himself. That wouldn't make him more 'valuable' to me.

Reality is the basis for art, it is the source from which we can draw upon to make perfect statements under our control. Reality isn't art itself, and in no way must somehow conform to all of its standards or else it's not worthy.

If that's what has been forgotten here, I have to say this thread disgusts me.

[Jake_Ellison]

I may just be totally lost, but, I'm deeply disturbed by the idea that Objectivism would paint a more "objectively beautiful" person (naked, as they are genetically) as more moral. Or in any application like it, say as in the mentally challenged example, as mental handicaps (including mental illness) could be considered intellectually ugly. Are some people here actually saying that a 'more objectively beautiful' person by purpose of genetics alone is actually more moral, or that a genius is somehow more moral when compared to 'objectively ugly' people or those of sub-optimal intelligence?

No. Beauty and intelligence are both objective values. That doesn't mean people who have them are more moral than those who don't, it means that people who value them in the context of their lives (recognize them as objective values) are more moral (in that respect, but could be less moral in other respects of course) than those who don't.

Morality pertains to choices, but beauty doesn't. Using the two interchangeably is what caused your confusion, but please note that I didn't say beauty is the same as morality, only the people arguing against physical beauty as a value implied that.

I am not turning a blind eye to the fact that certain aspects of individuals can be more appealing than others in some cases, particularly those involving a great intellect, or attractive features, but I will never accept that somehow dwarfs, hunchbacks, Down's Syndrome sufferers, fat people suffering from thyroid imbalances, and those with below average IQs are somehow less valuable (or able to be valued) as human beings simply because they don't conform to some artistic standard. That's some serious context dropping.

Context dropping is extracting a concept from the context it is defined in, using it without it. For instance, value is defined in the context of a valuer with a purpose. You dropped the context of the act of valuing just now, by failing to specify the valuer and his purpose, when determining something's worth. You treated value as an out of context absolute. I'm lazy so I'll just reuse the same old example from a few posts back: if the context of valuing is a basketball coach looking for a team to make it in the NBA, turning a blind eye to any of those features you listed would lead to failure to achieve the purpose, due to some seriously irrational value judgments.

P.S. On the other hand, someone recasting the Willy Wonka movie should place a lot less value on tall, handsome athletes than singing and dancing (preferably already green) dwarfs.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[asherwolf]

... people who value them [ed. Beauty and intelligence] in the context of their lives (recognize them as objective values) are more moral (in that respect, but could be less moral in other respects of course) than those who don't.

...

You dropped the context of the act of valuing just now, by failing to specify the valuer and his purpose, when determining something's worth.

...

Okay, I'm glad to have cleared that up. Since the article in question was bent in a more romantic fashion, then necessarily in a more global context (despite the discussion going there), I will focus on that. The purpose then is to have a mate that is attractive to you and states, or personifies, your moral ideals. Since beauty and intelligence are objective values, and those who value them are more moral, then any eligible mate must be both beautiful and intelligent. How beautiful? Don't stop at anything less than romanticist perfection (remember that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder), since anything less would demonstrate that the valuer in question was somehow less moral. Acne and warts are ugly, so always perfectly clear skin, and asymmetry has proved less biologically/sexually attractive so of course you have to count out any breasts larger than the other... what, you can't see yourself down there? Too fat and the valuer's morals may be tarnished. How intelligent? Don't stop at above-average intelligence, when you could have the inventor of the motor that stopped the world... when it's invented that is.

This is addressed to all posters.

However, why stop at romance, when this can apply to the context and purpose of your friends too... or how you value every human being in a global context? If I value drool-fest seizure-boy because he had a good sense of humor and a passion for fun, it's obviously because I don't have a 'decent view' of humanity somewhere in my value structure (that being reflected in his abnormalities). If that's not how this is supposed to come across, someone's done a poor job of it.

I didn't realize valuing beauty and intelligence meant disregarding to the point of discarding every person out there who didn't fit some romanticist ideal. Nor did I realize it meant condemning them to a life of lesser moral values (to paraphrase another poster: "the physically abnormal and those of low intelligence should just accept what they have and only strive for others of the same"). If they are striving to value that which is less than beautiful, wouldn't that make them less moral?

My accusation of context dropping wasn't addressed in the brief time between when I posted and when I've come back, but it was about art and reality. The two are different. It's too unfortunate for me to fathom having to explain further, thus I have the inability to do so. I can only hope somebody else has the proper words. This thread is ridiculous.

[kainscalia]

"the physically abnormal and those of low intelligence should just accept what they have and only strive for others of the same"

Alright, then, let's take a look. Let's apply these analects and put them into practice in a game of Matchmaker!

Feel free to turn on your Fiddler On The Roof soundtracks for this exercise. Let's begin!

This person

Being of great beauty and desirability should strive for this person and nothing less:

Meanwhile this person, who is not attractive in the least and could not be considered beautiful by most standards

should therefore strive for someone of equal unattractiveness, but not anyone more genetically repugnant than her, so since we already broke up one end of the couple let's match the missing end to her, and choose for her the appropriate man:

Yeah, I just went there, and proudly so to highlight how utterly brainless and ridiculous these arguments have become. This is simply thoroughly ridiculous and I will beg the forgiveness of The Council Of Eugenics, but I have no further desire to inhabit a thread that tries to disguise shallowness as intellectual arguments.

Honestly, one would be inclined to think you've lost your minds.

Edited February 24, 2010 by kainscalia

[Grames]

Alright, then, let's take a look. Let's apply these analects and put them into practice in a game of Matchmaker!

I cannot resist pouring gas on this fire.

Ayn Rand herself was unable to resist pairing together the two most beautiful people in Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar and Kay Ludlow. What does that say?

[Alfa]

The purpose then is to have a mate that is attractive to you and states, or personifies, your moral ideals. Since beauty and intelligence are objective values, and those who value them are more moral, then any eligible mate must be both beautiful and intelligent.

No. The purpose is to lead a happy and fulfulling life, and you should choose a mate accordingly - i.e according to your personal value hierarchy. Someone who personifies your moral ideals could be a GREAT value however.

How beautiful? Don't stop at anything less than romanticist perfection (remember that beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder), since anything less would demonstrate that the valuer in question was somehow less moral. Acne and warts are ugly, so always perfectly clear skin, and asymmetry has proved less biologically/sexually attractive so of course you have to count out any breasts larger than the other... what, you can't see yourself down there? Too fat and the valuer's morals may be tarnished. How intelligent? Don't stop at above-average intelligence, when you could have the inventor of the motor that stopped the world... when it's invented that is.

This is just a childish misrepresentation of the arguments presented earlier in this thread.

However, why stop at romance, when this can apply to the context and purpose of your friends too... or how you value every human being in a global context? If I value drool-fest seizure-boy because he had a good sense of humor and a passion for fun, it's obviously because I don't have a 'decent view' of humanity somewhere in my value structure (that being reflected in his abnormalities). If that's not how this is supposed to come across, someone's done a poor job of it.

You've done a poor job of reading and you're jumping to conclusions that are not supported by any arguments presented here.

I didn't realize valuing beauty and intelligence meant disregarding to the point of discarding every person out there who didn't fit some romanticist ideal. Nor did I realize it meant condemning them to a life of lesser moral values (to paraphrase another poster: "the physically abnormal and those of low intelligence should just accept what they have and only strive for others of the same"). If they are striving to value that which is less than beautiful, wouldn't that make them less moral?

No, beauty and intelligence are not the only things one can value.

It's too unfortunate for me to fathom having to explain further, thus I have the inability to do so.

Clearly... and please don't make any more attempts until you have actually read and understood what has already been written here. Your tone is rude and disrespectful, and your arguments have completely missed the target.

[Alfa]

Ayn Rand herself was unable to resist pairing together the two most beautiful people in Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar and Kay Ludlow. What does that say?

She was also so taken by Frank O'Connors looks that she practically chased him down and tripped him on stage to get his attention.

[Jake_Ellison]

I didn't realize valuing beauty and intelligence meant disregarding to the point of discarding every person out there who didn't fit some romanticist ideal. Nor did I realize it meant condemning them to a life of lesser moral values (to paraphrase another poster: "the physically abnormal and those of low intelligence should just accept what they have and only strive for others of the same"). If they are striving to value that which is less than beautiful, wouldn't that make them less moral?

Yes it would. What's quoting other posters while responding to me is going to accomplish? I gave an answer to that problem too, a few posts back: while beauty is an an objective value, it remains to be settled how important a value it is, in one's hierarchy of values. Conveying at what point valuing physical beauty over other aspects of a person becomes irrational would be a far more worthwhile enterprise than insisting on this ridiculous notion that everyone who refuses to pretend that physical beauty doesn't matter wants to dig up Ayn Rand and burn her remains because she never won a beauty pageant.

My accusation of context dropping wasn't addressed in the brief time between when I posted and when I've come back, but it was about art and reality.

You need to consider what art is, and how it relates to reality. In other words, you need to look at art in the context of reality. Refusal to do so is context dropping too, not just the refusal to acknowledge the difference between the two. Art reflects the artist's (and possibly the audience's) esthetic judgement (view of what is important about reality). What's beautiful in art is beautiful in reality (to a subject, or to human subjects in general, of course, not to thin air or a tree).

[kainscalia]

Dagny herself was not beautiful, except for a nice pair of gams.

Hank Rearden is described as austere and angular.

Roark is anything but an ideal hunk.

John Galt was a babe.

What does that say? Discuss.

I'm afraid there's not enough kindle for your fire here.

And Alfa, as far as missing the boat? I'm afraid your 'arguments' never left port to begin with. Firstly, for someone who espouses such interesting Eugenics, you have failed to provide us with something very important: Your photograph.

Allow me to explain: You see, since you must obviously hold these beliefs as rational and true, then you must be an ardent practicant. We would like to evaluate the objective aesthetic standards of your face by means of the Marquadt mask, and then evaluate those of your chosen wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or husband, so that we may judge whether or not you have transgressed upon these principles by choosing someone who is either far more attractive than you are or far less attractive. It really is that simple- and should you be found at fault, I would naturally expect for you to separate from the offending party immediately-- after all, Frank O'Connor clearly abandoned Ayn Rand when he realized that the mathematical symmetry of his features far outstripped the ugly inequality of hers. Right?

As an artist I must express a very relieved sigh to note that on the subject of art here I am dealing with a very large group of eunuchs. By that I refer to the famous Beethoven quote about critics which read "Critics are like Eunuchs, they all know how it should be done..." Otherwise were it not so and these empty intellectualloids had had any bearing in the field of art and entertainment, we could have said goodbye to

Julie Andrews. Oh, let's face it boys and girls, the girl's not beautiful at all-- analyze her features and you'll see that she's actually extremely plain. As plain as an English breakfast, even as plain as a milkmaid. So what if her acting talent is enormous, or the fact that her inner quality was so palpable that she lit up the screen with her presence? Despite the presence of a beautiful singing voice, obviously someone so un-beautiful did not objectively deserve the career of a leading lady- at best a first figure in the chorus. And let's not even speak of

Carol Channing. By Alfa's standards, this is a complete and absolute failure! Eyes the size of saucers, a mouth the size of Nantucket, and a reedy voice with a freakish three octave register that wasn't beautiful in the least!. So what if her acting talents are legendary and could act circles dramatically and comically around the much more beautiful Megan Fox? What if any performance of hers still have more fire, artistry and impact than most entertainers half her age? What if the woman can sing musically and with great aplomb despite the fact of having an un-beautiful voice? Just look at her! She's as ugly as Ayn Rand! Obviously she never deserved the career she had, obviously just like

Maria Callas. What a sham! Ugly face with dissonant features (enormous nose, incongruous lips, too high cheekbones), and her voice was hardly the idealized crystal-clear birdlike soprano that opera managers of her day were looking for. Who cares if she was able to revolutionize the whole concept of an operatic performance into a much more passionate and modern affair? Or that her musical interpretations are to this day the standard under which all sopranos aspire to and are held to? The woman had an ugly voice by most standards, so her performance has no value whatsoever. What does it matter that her acting onstage is still to this day the standard by which most actors and opera singers aspire to? Girl was ugly. Out the window!

Meryl, Meryl.... what's to be said? Plain as a housewife, not beautiful by any stretch of the imagination. Not valuable in the least- what can I say?

It is obvious to me that the real talent and value here has to be acknowledged:

The gorgeous, beautiful and breath-taking Jessica Alba, who gave us such startling and deep performances in... er... Fantastic Four. Or was it Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? No, I am certain I mean The Love Guru, yes.

Clearly.

Edited February 24, 2010 by kainscalia

[whYNOT]

Is it possible to keep some perspective here?

This is what happens when one allows in the premise that good looks are a rational value.

What else is? The fact that I like a cigarette and cup of tea before I start a work assignment? That I like blondes with long legs? Or brunettes with big eyes?

I think we are over-using the word/concept "value."

No, these things may be of 'benefit', visually and psychologically to me, but nowhere near being a Value.

As for the morality of pursuing or upholding Beauty, please remember we are talking reality here - not art. What do I call my beautiful wife? A piece of living art, who I chose because I am an art connoisseur?

I am only partially in agreement with the Dr Peikoff viewpoint that all harmony is pleasing, and can be objectively measured (to paraphrase him); and partially with Jake Ellison's bringing in Hierarchy to the party.

My own hierarchy places character and rationality 100's of degrees higher on a scale, than good looks.

But looks might just creep in at the bottom of the scale.

To those who decry conflating Beauty with Morality - I agree to the hilt.

BUT, to deny that people differ, in intelligence, energy, character, and so on, AS WELL AS good looks

is to allow in another false premise - egalitarianism.

This is what Post-modernism and PC-ness has done to us: that we are not allowed to refer, even privately , to the fact that someone is ugly as hell - as if that defines all that he is in our superficial world.

[asherwolf]

This is just a childish misrepresentation of the arguments presented earlier in this thread.

I really don't see that. I'll have to retract my earlier claim that someone said that less beautiful or less intelligent individuals should only strive for the same, as I can't find where I specifically got that from. However, I think whatever 'childish' things I said, and the conclusion I just came to in the previous sentence can be summed up as such:

Yes, it's unlikely that someone with a decent view of life and man would depict our dwarf lady as something beautiful, or ideal, in a work of art. The simplest reason for that is, she isn't. And no matter what she does she's never going to be as beautiful as someone born without those defects. That's just a fact, no matter what her character is like.

The value of a persons beauty in real life is the same as in art; it's a physical concretization of our ideals.

No, it's not just different - the dwarf lady would be ugly. Plain and simple. Due to her physical disadvantages she would be very limited in this regard. That's why you don't see hunchback dwarfs in men's magazines, that's why you don't see them in beautiful paintings or sculptures, and that's why noone - except perhaps for a few very strange people - hold them as their ideal.

Your argument is like comparing a retard and a genius and saying that it's their choices and amount of work that determine how smart they are. While that certainly is important there's no way the retard could compare with the genius. Just like dwarf ladies cannot compete with the most beautiful actresses.

(*ahem* Hunchback of Notre Dame *ahem*) ... or the fact that as Kain pointed out, less beautiful actresses have eclipsed much more beautiful, or even ugly, ones in the past.

I'm only taking things to a logical conclusion. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye, or apparently speak the same language. For the record however, I have read every single word in this thread, and regardless of whether you agree, have understood it well in the context of all the other language used here and things considered.

If I seem rude and disrespectful, it's only in the degree to that which is being considered. Are dystopias disrespectful? That's all I have painted from what I see as the core elements of this argument.

[Alfa]

And Alfa, as far as missing the boat? I'm afraid your 'arguments' never left port to begin with. Firstly, for someone who espouses such interesting Eugenics, you have failed to provide us with something very important: Your photograph.

Since I haven't espoused any eugenics I sincerely doubt that you actually read any of my arguments. I suggest you do that first, and that you do it carefully and objectively. As for my own looks, I look good enough to like what I see in the mirror. That's enough for me.

Allow me to explain: You see, since you must obviously hold these beliefs as rational and true, then you must be an ardent practicant. We would like to evaluate the objective aesthetic standards of your face by means of the Marquadt mask, and then evaluate those of your chosen wife, girlfriend, boyfriend or husband, so that we may judge whether or not you have transgressed upon these principles by choosing someone who is either far more attractive than you are or far less attractive. It really is that simple- and should you be found at fault, I would naturally expect for you to separate from the offending party immediately-- after all, Frank O'Connor clearly abandoned Ayn Rand when he realized that the mathematical symmetry of his features far outstripped the ugly inequality of hers. Right?

No, allow me to explain: you are clearly arguing against the "paraphrasing" that "asherwolf" made, wich I assume was a misrepresation of a couple of early post made by ZSorenson and me. You may want to take a look at the first page of this thread.

[Grames]

Relevant to this thread is Leonard Peikoff podcast 101, wherein he answers the question (at 11:52): "'To what extent should physical attractions, as distinct from brains, be favored into the selection of a wife?' and he says earlier that of course brains are important."

[2046]

This isn't really relevant to the rest of the thread, but what about the economics of beauty. Is it moral that a model or otherwise untalented actress, (say a porn star for example) is paid to appear at an event solely on the basis that they are present and have good looks and are good at posing for the camera? Is there any merit to the claim, perhaps from some type of "women's liberation" or whatever type of group that this is a vice, "objectifying" women or a "degrading" practice that one should seek to profit from a model's looks and also a vice that the patrons or customers of this event would seek satisfaction and enjoyment from oogling the models?

[Jake_Ellison]

This isn't really relevant to the rest of the thread, but what about the economics of beauty. Is it moral that a model or otherwise untalented actress, (say a porn star for example) is paid to appear at an event solely on the basis that they are present and have good looks and are good at posing for the camera? Is there any merit to the claim, perhaps from some type of "women's liberation" or whatever type of group that this is a vice, "objectifying" women or a "degrading" practice that one should seek to profit from a model's looks and also a vice that the patrons or customers of this event would seek satisfaction and enjoyment from oogling the models?

Not in the case of models and actresses (obviously having sex with strangers, on camera, has other moral implications). Should natural athletes ignore their bone and muscle structure and go into accounting?

The idea that unchosen characteristics cannot possibly be regarded as value, and used to achieve one's goals, is quite absurd. If we look beyond the emotionalism and arguments from intimidation of a couple of posters in this thread, there really are no arguments against physical beauty being applied, the same as exceptional intelligence or athletic ability, a great ear for music, or any other positive, valuable, and natural characteristic, in ourselves or others(!!), to the benefit of our lives.

The argument that women are objectified is of course entirely valid if used to mean that 'physical beauty is over valued in contexts where that particular characteristic does not further the achievement of one's goal'. A more beautiful President or Supreme Court Justice, all else being equal, won't do a better job. However, a beautiful actress in the role of Shia LeBeuf's' love interest in the next Transformers movie will cause the inevitable third installment of the series to be a little more interesting -- not enough to make me watch it, but if I had to either watch the version starring Megan Fox, or the same exact movie with some equally mediocre but less attractive actress, the objectively better choice would be the Megan Fox version)

[whYNOT]

The idea that unchosen characteristics cannot possibly be regarded as value, and used to achieve one's goals, is quite absurd. If we look beyond the emotionalism and arguments from intimidation of a couple of posters in this thread, there really are no arguments against physical beauty being applied, the same as exceptional intelligence or athletic ability, a great ear for music, or any other positive, valuable, and natural characteristic, in ourselves or others(!!), to the benefit of our lives.

Well as for those arguments from intimidation, this accusation can just as well be levelled at those of the 'beauty is a rational value' camp.

Their basic argument is "I admire natural beauty, ergo, it must be a rational value."

To repeat, let's keep some sense of proportion here.

No one's dismissing beauty as insignificant - it obviously is pleasurable, especially when compared to physical drabness.

But a RATIONAL value? Wishing don't make it so.

As a benefit in one's own life? (being a good-looking person), sure, use it to the utmost, without guilt.

To possess it personally, or appreciate it in others, that's all it is - a benefit.