Yeah, but being rejected for one’s appearance causes misery and suffering. So there’s a cost-benefit analysis here...
Since looking at pretty things makes others happy, seems like a straightforward application of utilitarianism. #effectivealtruism
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2017.1423236 …pic.twitter.com/jYEbGAGF7i
-
-
-
Rejected for other reasons doesn't? There aren't many reporters around, and there's a lot of viewers, so the numbers work out very well in favor of screening for beauty.
-
Of course it does on both points. Nevertheless, I’m not sure it’s a utilitarian argument. Ratings, sure. But complicated moral analysis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The overall effect of exposing people to attractive stars on TV (in films, news, etc) could easily be negative due to the anxiety and stress it induces in terms of perceived competition.
-
Sounds like inducing healthy goals to me. Fat shaming reduces obesity rates and improves health.
-
Most people can get somewhat slim, but by definition very few people can be as attractive as an actress or attractive news presenter. Perhaps some kind of middle of the road rule is optimal, like you must be between +0.5σ and +1.5σ in attractiveness, but no higher.
-
Maybe in the future we will label stories about exceptionally good/attractive/successful people as form of information hazard that most people choose to avoid exposing themselves to.
-
handicapper-general was supposed to be a satire of conservative fears, not a prophecy
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.