Toribash
Original Post
Beauty: Objective/Subjective?



It's often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We're all different individuals and so we can all look at something and come away with different thoughts about it. But is that really true?

A fat girl with crooked teeth, patchy skin and shit hair would be immediately labelled as ugly (or not beautiful) by the vast majority of people who gaze upon her. This would suggest that some characteristics that are more beautiful than others. We have standards of beauty. Are people who call the fat girl beautiful simply wrong?

Something either is, or it isn't (truth exists). 1+1=2 and anybody who argues that it equals 5 is plain wrong. Is the same true with judgements of beauty?

Phrased differently, is a 10/10 always a 10/10, regardless of who does the judging? If someone says the 10 is a 3, are they just plain wrong?

I'll offer my opinion after there's been some discussion on this. What are your thoughts? Don't think you have to restrict your response to solely talking about beauty in people - You can talk about beauty in all spheres.

inb4 beauty standards are socially/culturally/evolutionarily constructed
Last edited by Ele; Mar 30, 2017 at 05:22 PM.
Beauty is always subjective but because of our evolutionary traits most of us find similar features attractive creating the illusion of some objectivity.
In some contexts because of these shared views we can call some traits objectively beautiful in a conversational context.
But fundamentally things like beauty can never be objective as that would imply that any creature would find these same traits beautiful.
Same applies to any similar adjectives like good, tasty etc.

EDIT:

In summary calling that woman ugly is wrong if your idea of right is what most people think.
Obviously it's not "wrong" to call her ugly, just unconventional.

Confusing common views and ideals as objective truths just because they are commonly shared is basically the lowest kind of intellectual mistake one can perform.
Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 31, 2017 at 12:12 AM.
Yeah, it's a weird one. There's definitely objective lines to be drawn. A small, petite nose generally looks more attractive on a female than a big, pronounced one. But like cowmeat said, it's mostly down to evolution.

I wouldn't say it's wholly subjective either. Subjective means "influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". If we're biologically hardwired into perceiving a certain kind of beauty, then it's surely none of those things.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
I wouldn't say it's wholly subjective either. Subjective means "influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". If we're biologically hardwired into perceiving a certain kind of beauty, then it's surely none of those things.


Everything we do as biological beings is "hardwired". That is not a valid argument for objectivity in beauty. If beauty was objective that would mean that things could be beautiful separate of our views of it, which they cant.
Let me put that phare as an example:

1+1=2.
Our perceptions of this truth don't change the fact that it's an objective truth.
I talked about the illusion of objectivity earlier and I think you are focusing on that illusion.
There are very few things objectively true in general, not to mention such complex and sensitive things as beauty.

I think a fruitful conversation would be for example "For what extent does culture and personal preferences define beauty" But by almost definition beauty cannot be objective since it requires an individual to perceive that beauty in the first place.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
1+1=2.
Our perceptions of this truth don't change the fact that it's an objective truth.
I talked about the illusion of objectivity earlier and I think you are focusing on that illusion.
There are very few things objectively true in general, not to mention such complex and sensitive things as beauty.

The proper line to draw here is the difference between things that are concrete (real, tangible) and things that are abstractions (conceptualisations, intangible). It's possible to establish truth and objectivity with concrete things because they have a basis in actual reality, so we can investigate them with the scientific method (+logic and reason) and come up with objective truths - Statements of fact.

It's much harder (but I wouldn't say impossible) to come up with objective truths about abstractions. They have no basis in reality, but that doesn't mean that we can't use reason and science to come to 'objective' conclusions. They may not be objective in the sense that nobody can come up with a different conclusion, but they are objective in the sense that any sane, reasonable person would agree with them. I don't think it's far-fetched for us to be able to make objective judgements about certain subjective matters. I think it's possible for us to find truth in the realm of abstractions by using some of the same tools we use to find it in the concrete world - logic and reason.

Take morality, for example. Any sane and reasonable person would agree that it's never OK to torture and rape a child - There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. We do not need to be wishy-washy and say, 'Hey man, moral relativism, each to their own'. No, that is an objectively immoral act. Any course of action that decreases suffering and increases happiness is good and moral, any course of action that does the opposite is bad and immoral. Would any sane and reasonable person disagree with that as a starting proposition?

Is it technically 'objectivity'? No, because we're talking about conceptualisations that don't actually exist. Can we, however, achieve some standards of 'objectivity' and make a statement of fact about conceptual things though? I think we can, so long as we put on our thinking caps and justify it with logic and reason.
Last edited by Ele; Mar 31, 2017 at 06:47 PM.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
The proper line to draw here is the difference between things that are concrete (real, tangible) and things that are abstractions (conceptualisations, intangible). It's possible to establish truth and objectivity with concrete things because they have a basis in actual reality, so we can investigate them with the scientific method (+logic and reason) and come up with objective truths - Statements of fact.

It's much harder (but I wouldn't say impossible) to come up with objective truths about abstractions. They have no basis in reality, but that doesn't mean that we can't use reason and science to come to 'objective' conclusions. They may not be objective in the sense that nobody can come up with a different conclusion, but they are objective in the sense that any sane, reasonable person would agree with them. I don't think it's far-fetched for us to be able to make objective judgements about certain subjective matters. I think it's possible for us to find truth in the realm of abstractions by using some of the same tools we use to find it in the concrete world - logic and reason.

Take morality, for example. Any sane and reasonable person would agree that it's never OK to torture and rape a child - There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. We do not need to be wishy-washy and say, 'Hey man, moral relativism, each to their own'. No, that is an objectively immoral act. Any course of action that decreases suffering and increases happiness is good and moral, any course of action that does the opposite is bad and immoral. Would any sane and reasonable person disagree with that as a starting proposition?

Is it technically 'objectivity'? No, because we're talking about conceptualisations that don't actually exist. Can we, however, achieve some standards of 'objectivity' and make a statement of fact about conceptual things though? I think we can, so long as we put on our thinking caps and justify it with logic and reason.


I was waiting for the morality argument and I will put forth the same thing I said earlier:

"Beauty(morality) is always subjective but because of our evolutionary traits most of us find similar features(acts) attractive(moral) creating the illusion of some objectivity. "
In a conversational context we can call things like morality objective, but in a philosophical conversation I would say calling morality objective is usually a mistake.

"There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. "
Considered by who? Again there is someone who has to consider it, thus it is subjective.

If you want to talk about "watered down" objectivity, sure there is objectivity in beauty and morality. But that's not very interesting.

"Is it technically 'objectivity'? No,"

That's my point here, I've made no other.
Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 31, 2017 at 06:58 PM.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
"There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. "
Considered by who? Again there is someone who has to consider it, thus it is subjective.

Consideration of a fact still happens when dealing with concretes though. The difference is that we can easily come across a definitive, objective answer for concrete things because science works on the natural world. So consideration of the fact isn't relevant here, what's relevant is that we can't use the scientific method in full in the realm of conceptualisations, since conceptualisations don't exist in the natural world.

I still stand by my point that we can investigate the conceptual world and make judgements using what tools we can, logic and reason. It may not be 'objectivity' in the most technical sense, but I don't think that's really important, since it lets us say definitive things like 'torturing and raping a child is immoral' and 'fat people with fucked teeth and open bleeding sores all over their body aren't beautiful'. Things that any sane and reasonable person would agree with. Is it technically objective, nah. Does it matter at all that it's not, nah. I'd argue the distinction is mostly unimportant for any context that isn't within a university philosophy class.
Originally Posted by Cowmeat
If you want to talk about "watered down" objectivity, sure there is objectivity in beauty and morality. But that's not very interesting.

Lol, it's way more interesting and engaging than discussing philosophy class objectivity.
Last edited by Ele; Mar 31, 2017 at 07:12 PM.
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Consideration of a fact still happens when dealing with concretes though. The difference is that we can easily come across a definitive, objective answer for concrete things because science works on the natural world. So consideration of the fact isn't relevant here, what's relevant is that we can't use the scientific method in full in the realm of conceptualisations, since conceptualisations don't exist in the natural world.

I still stand by my point that we can investigate the conceptual world and make judgements using what tools we can, logic and reason. It may not be 'objectivity' in the most technical sense, but I don't think that's really important, since it lets us say definitive things like 'torturing and raping a child is immoral' and 'fat people with fucked teeth and open bleeding sores all over their body aren't beautiful'. Things that any sane and reasonable person would agree with. Is it technically objective, nah. Does it matter at all that it's not, nah. I'd argue the distinction is mostly unimportant for any context that isn't within a university philosophy class.

I think this conversation has no point. We both agree on pretty much everything. Of course in a conversational context you can find "pseudo-objectivity" that is close enough to real objectivity to be perceived as such.
And thus you can find these pseudo-objective values in beauty, art and other mostly subjective matters. Where you draw that line of objectivity is not too important as the word at that point functions as a conversational tool and not a philosophical term.
Well, I made this thread to just get Discussion a lil' bit of activity. Problem is you cut straight through to the heart of the topic in the very first post. If you didn't get involved and we didn't go back and forth a bit, it probably would've taken a few pages until other people did something similar. I figured it would take a little longer for the discussion to run its course than it did.

I'll think of a more suitably juicy topic for you and people like you to digest next time. Or you could also post one, that'd be good too.