Should ugly people get special protection?

Most experiments throughout the years have shown that attractive people have advantages in life. Attractive people are treated more nicely by people and forgiven more easily. The attractiveness of a defendant in court has also been shown to affect the rulings. The latest experiment showed that men accepted unfair proposals to split money in a game when it was proposed by an attractive woman. The men were also quicker to respond to fair proposals and slower to respond to unfair proposals when the woman was attractive. Brain scans of the men showed increased activity in the reward regions of the brain when the woman was attractive.

But most of us already knew about this phenomenon, at some level. Unattractive people are basically playing the game of life on a harder difficulty setting. So does that mean that attractiveness should be a civil rights issue?


0|1
6|15

Most Helpful Guy

  • No. Not everything is a civil rights issue. Life isn't perfectly fair and can't be made to be so. But I can understand why this question might occur to somebody living in this day and age when everyone seems to be agitating based on identity politics and particular grievances.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I'm just playing devil's advocate. Thanks for the answer, but you don't really present a rational principle as to why we should make distinctions between one type of disadvantage over another.

    • Show All
    • Okay, so let's hypothesize a civil rights law aiming to protect ugly people. Let's see, what kind of problems might occur with this law? First, who would decide what is ugly and what is not? What standards would be used that weren't entirely subjective? How would you prove that an action or decision was based on a person supposedly being ugly? Angry person: "ACME Company didn't hire me because I'm ugly! That's not fair!" Greedy Lawyer: "Don't worry, angry ugly person! We'll sue them! They'll pay for their crime!" Deposition of ACME Company official in charge of hiring: "So isn't it true you didn't hire Angry Ugly Person just because she's ugly?" ACME Company official: "Absolutely not. There were other applicants more qualified, and frankly I don't even consider Angry Ugly Person to be ugly." Lawyer: "But this hatred you have for ugly people, it's in your heart isn't it? You just won't admit it!" ACME Company official: "You sir, are deranged."

    • "so then who says who deserves more rights? and why?"

      I don't know. I'm only asking the question as to whether being disadvantaged in attractiveness warrants special protections. And if not, why not? Your basic argument has some merit: that it's too nebulous to measure attractiveness. But there is a science behind physical attractiveness. www.uni-regensburg.de/.../prototypen.htm

What Girls Said 6

  • How would that even be decided? Physical beauty is largely subjective. How could you prove someone is objectively uglt?

    1|0
    0|0
    • Some people are more attractive and others more unattractive. No part of human nature is completely objective, but there are some obvious principles that we can observe. The experiment cited in this question is an example of this. There are many others, out there.

    • Show All
    • Yes, of course we would have to have an objective measure of something that is partly subjective in nature. The justice system does it all the time.

    • With various degrees of success.

  • I agree. Ugly people get treated unfairly. Me and @Touglyforfemales get treated like crap by the opposite gender.

    0|2
    1|0
  • No, beauty is subjective anyways. Also, makeup can make anyone look good.

    Special rights/protection seems stupid.

    0|0
    2|0
    • Men don't wear makeup, though. And it has a limit. You can't get someone totally homely and turn her into a beauty queen just with makeup.

    • That doesn't mean men can't wear makeup. Also, don't underestimate how different a person can look with the right application of makeup. As for the homeless person, a shower and combing her hair would help as well... maybe not into a beauty queen but definitely attractive.

  • Um.. What?

    1|0
    0|0
  • LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

    0|0
    1|0

What Guys Said 14

  • I believe all are created equal under the law, it is how laws are interpreted that forced the civil rights movements. Technically Blacks should have been equal to Whites immediately after the constitution was written alas people chose to interpret it differently.

    Much as Blacks shouldn't be harassed for the colour of their skin neither should anyone else. However in an attempt to implement equality statesmen have created a concept which I despise known as "affirmative action".

    Ugly people are already legally equal to everyone else, how they are treated is up to us and the government. Next thing you know there will be an "Ugly people's beauty pageant" and you would be constantly bombarded by the media telling you that no one is "ugly" and that it is an offensive term. People who aren't interested in them would be discriminated against with hateful words. Who knows how far this will go?

    That is why I say hell no. Everyone is equal under the law. Everything else is up to you to figure out. You gotta play with the hand you're dealt and not whine about it since there is always someone that is far worse off.

    0|1
    0|1
    • If everyone is legal under the law how come it's been proven that wealthy interests can affect laws, while the average person can't?

    • Show All
    • @tenofthepeaks Nobody is equating them. But injustice is injustice. I made my point pretty clear that some other injustice being comparatively worse isn't a rational reason to ignore the injustice in question. If you're going to admit you have no further point by spouting petty insults, I guess there's nothing more to say.

    • Injustice? There is no injustice towards ugly people they have the same rights as everybody else. As @tenofthepeaks seems to agree. If someone doesn't get hired for a job because they are ugly, how would they prove that in a court of law? Segregation happens regardless since few people want to be around those they perceive as unattractive. At the end of the day it comes down to one factor:
      Would you want to have sex with this person?
      If the answer is yes, than you will go out of your way to make that person comfortable to increase your chances of getting laid (or at least a guy would).
      If the answer is no, than why bother.

      This article does a pretty good job of explaining it
      www.psychologytoday.com/.../the-truth-about-why-beautiful-people-are-more-successful

  • I don't think ugly people have it tougher in most things except love and sex (which is pretty shit anyway). So no, ugly people shouldn't be protected and in terms of business, the most successful people I know (millionaires) are not going to make the cover of FHM anytime soon. Lol... Donald Trump?, Bill gates?, Warren Buffet? They never let their looks dictate their outcome.

    0|0
    0|1
    • "I don't think ugly people have it tougher in most things except love and sex"

      So you're calling the findings of this experiment, and others like it, invalid?

    • Show All
    • Dude... really? what criteria? ( height, gravity and physical anatomy is way different from looks and social expectations) and the numbers regarding it are vastly different. I dismissed nothing. Tell me how I dismissed it? I told you your example is wrong because its two different scenarios... which I reiterated now. Anyway i'm done with this. in short all the uglier successful men and women out there that have made it (world leader, business leaders, politicians, even actors and singers) would tell a guy like you to stop being a victim. Adding value to something dictates success, not looks.

    • I congratulate you on your success over the strawman.

  • Agreed that life is inherently unfair when it comes to this but no it should not be a civil rights issue. People have different views of what attractive is and it varies by individual.

    0|0
    1|1
    • People also have different views on different races. So civil rights shouldn't consider race?

    • Race is nothing but a social construct the media forces on us to distract us away from much MUCH more important problems. You can't just do the thing where you make a comparison to something completely irrelevant to the point in order to make yourself sound smart. If you think it should be a civil rights issue then write to your congressman about it.

  • Possibly but good luck trying to get agreement on a standardised scale of attractiveness

    0|0
    0|0
  • Are unattractive people discriminated against? Yes, absolutely.
    Are attractive people given an advantage? Yes, absolutely.
    Should there be legislation to give unattractive people a leg up? No, absolutely not.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Harrison Bergeron you should read that

    0|0
    0|0
    • Show All
    • Well there it is, I am talking about laws and you are talking about lack of laws, I see the break down in communication now.

      I still stick with my logic here, even though you just added a new example. It may be callous, but those with mental handicaps are naturally disadvantaged. As you said, no laws were actually in place to effect this. People simply did these 'injustices' in a void of law- in a natural state in a way. Therefore my initial argument still stands, that by my definition, this is not a civil rights issue, and therefore not applicable tot his debate.

      I will note that these people do need society's help far more than ugly people, for without benefits and laws they would die and that is not how society should function, but that is an opinion, not a logical claim. Ugly people are just slightly miserable and 'maybe' get picked over for a job or salary increase. Hardly as bad as all the other issues we have discussed, but again, that is an opinion of mine, not to debate.

    • You are arguing a strawman when you argue vs some specific policy position. I never said I supported implementing any specific policy. I am only asking the question. And I don't see a satisfactory answer in saying "only to correct past laws", for the reasons I have already stated. Namely because your reasoning doesn't hold up, if we go back far enough. In pre-civilization there were no laws at all, so no laws intended against injustice should have ever been implemented.

  • Absolutely they should

    0|0
    0|0
  • No... it makes them weak and sheltered

    1|0
    2|1
    • One could argue then they'd be similar to a very attractive person.

    • I don't think attractive people should get special protection either.

    • But that's the point, they do, by default.

  • no. uglies were never enslaved or denied the right to vote... if they're denied sex or date or friends, so what? i don't consider that as bad.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes or no maybe pethapds

    0|0
    0|0
  • plastic surgeons would lose out

    0|0
    0|0
  • Ok.. Where can I buy these said good looks?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Ugly men have it harder than ugly women.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think this has merit. We should ensure that companies also hire a representative portion of the ugly. Call it ugly affirmative action

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...