Comments on: Unequal Beauty Silence

By: Rick Weber

Rick Weber — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:26:27 +0000

Last year I was at the California Republicans’ Convention. Most of the people there were very attractive and well dressed.

A few weeks later I went to the California Democrats’ Convention. There, most of the people were markedly unattractive. A lot of the younger crowd were actively unattractive. One guy stands out in my memory; long greasy hair, facial piercings, dirty clothes.

(Libertarians are still the most attractive!)

By: Eric Falkenstein

Eric Falkenstein — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:18:45 +0000

Isn’t the lack of any real support for all types of inequality the best refutation of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, which supposedly motivates egalitarianism?

By: sillitoe

sillitoe — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:11:49 +0000

I think that we feel differently about categories like beauty, intelligence, talent, etc. because those are, by nature, measures of quality or capability. Beauty, by definition, is the degree to which people take pleasure in looking at you. Intelligence, by definition, is skill at cognitive tasks. Fast-twitch muscles make you a better sprinter. These traits may not be virtues in the sense that they’re willed — they may be products of chance — but they are capabilities. It is also something of a superiority to be non-disabled, in that a disability by its nature makes it difficult or impossible for you to do at least one thing that able-bodied people can do.

Race and gender, on the other hand, are not by definition measures of quality or capability. Yes, women can make babies and men can’t, and men are generally stronger, so sex can correlate with certain abilities, but “female” and “male” are not themselves measures of ability. It cannot be unequivocably and by definition better to be white than black, in the same way that it is by definition better to be strong than weak, beautiful than ugly, or intelligent than stupid.

Wealth is a different story. Someone with a high income is by definition better at earning money. (As with beauty, this is independent of effort or desert.) And, in itself, more wealth is better than less wealth. I would say that it is better to be rich than poor in the same way that it is better to be beautiful than ugly.

By: cournot

cournot — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:12:27 +0000

It would be very easy to give special subsidies to people who are short or to institute affirmative action in sports teams in favor of the weaker, smaller, or less talented. We could impose special taxes on industries rewarding the beautiful — such as modeling or fashion. We could severely limit anything resembling intelligence testing in college admissions. There are many kinds of policies that are extensions of existing policies in place. For example, companies are now afraid to give IQ tests to applicants because of Duke v. Griggs thus forcing college signaling as an alternative. Stricter extensions of those cases would penalize the clever even more. We could make it tax all professional sports more heavily, thus penalizing those whose many assets are athletic. We could force equal funding of basketball and basket weaving programs at all high schools. We could severely restrict social clubs like frats and sororities.

None of these policies would be good, but all are not that far removed from things that have been routinely done already.

By: Psychohistorian

Psychohistorian — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:23:51 +0000

Simples explanation I can think of: We only intervene in the expressly economic realm.

Welfare and taxation are our main redistributive schemes, and they deal exclusively with money. Laws meant to prohibit discrimination deal principally with economic concerns. They prohibit discrimination in hiring, housing, and during employment. There are no laws that prevent me from making lewd catcalls or refusing to associate with Asian people, so long as I do it on my own time. We don’t have any laws that explicitly tax one race and compensate another with the revenue. All, or nearly all, of our laws seek to ensure equal access to pursue economic interest, rather than explicitly compensating people for inequality. All the redistributive schemes those papers mention are completely unlike anything that currently exists.

By: Richard Silliker

Richard Silliker — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:01:54 +0000

Lets get on with this plan…. I am going to be rich.

By: agnostic

agnostic — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:35:32 +0000

No one seeks to address another widely perceived form of looks discrimination — that pretty people are dumb or ditzy. Just imagine how many beautiful people have been kept out of good jobs because the ugly and plain people in HR thought to themselves, “God, look at how much time she spent on her hair and make-up — clearly just another dumb cheerleader type.” Or perhaps, “This guy spends too much time at the gym.”

I hereby call for affirmative action to drive more good-looking people into academic departments, IT divisions, and other sectors where the “pretty = dumb” mindset reigns.

By: Karthik

Karthik — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:45:15 +0000

Beauty is a far more subjective attribute than wealth, gender and ethnicity.

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:43:38 +0000

You might be amused to learn that the District of Columbia's antidiscrimination statute includes "personal appearance" as a protected category. From the relevant law:

“Personal appearance” means the outward appearance of any person, irrespective of sex, with regard to bodily condition or characteristics, manner or style of dress, and manner style of personal grooming, including, but not limited to, hair style and beards. It shall not relate, however, to the requirement of cleanliness, uniforms, or prescribed standards, when uniformly applied for admittance to a public accommodation, or when uniformly applied to a class of employees for a reasonable business purpose; or when such bodily conditions or characteristics, style or manner of dress or personal grooming presents a danger to the health, welfare or safety of any individual.

Additionally, Michigan forbids discrimination based on height.

By: tim

tim — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:22:06 +0000

Closer to the point is Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, where the titular protagonist, a genuine ubermensch, is required to handicap himself in extreme fashion in a society that permits no natural advantages.