In the job market being attractive is advantageous. According to economist Daniel Hamermesh, an attractive man can earn, over a life time, $230,000 more than an unattractive one[1]. Attractive solicitors raise more money for charities[2]. Very attractive individuals are less likely to engage in criminal activities, whereas unattractive ones have higher propensity for crime[3]. Attractive criminals are punished less severely than unattractive ones[4].

Both children and adults judge attractive people to be more helpful, more intelligent, and more friendly than their unattractive counterparts[5].

Cute infants elicit stronger motivation for care-taking than less cute ones[6]. Moreover, cute infants are rated as most adoptable[7].

Adults have higher expectations of attractive kids compared to non attractive ones[8] and mothers of attractive infants tend to be more affectionate, playful, and attentive when interacting with their children than mothers of less attractive infants[9]. Teachers expect better performances from attractive students[10]. Transgressions of unattractive children are judged more negatively than transgressions of attractive ones[11].

Being attractive is also an advantage in romantic relationships[12] as there is a positive correlation between physical attractiveness and dating [13][14].

One response to unfairness is to get people to stop discriminating unfairly. This might work for some domains, such as employment where interviews could be conducted blind. But it won’t be possible to counteract all the potential downsides.

We can’t require people to like or fall in love with people they find unattractive. There are at least two possible responses:

Assist people to find attractive what they currently find unattractive Assist people to be more attractive to those who currently find them unattractive

Both of these are reasonable solutions. The second is cosmetic enhancement.

While many people find cosmetic enhancement a vain, superficial endeavour that perpetuates some “beauty myth”, it is a reasonable part of a solution to the problem of unfairness of unattractiveness. Of all the types of enhancement available to us, this is perhaps one of the most commonly used already; many people practice cosmetic enhancement to varying degrees (make-up, hair removal, hair dye, and a number of surgeries). But how it should be employed, what limits there should be and the norms around it are nevertheless yet to be fully explored.

Cosmetic enhancement is perhaps seen as more trivial and a simple matter of personal preference than other types of enhancement, which may be more related to getting ahead in society (cognitive enhancement for a better career/ socio-economic status in society, moral enhancement for a society better suited to co-operate to achieve common goals). This might mean there is less of a call for banning or limiting access to this kind of enhancement for equality reasons, or equally that on the other side of the debate there is less of a call for providing access to such enhancements to help people’s lives go better. It is simply deemed unimportant. But the above research shows that it might have more in common with other kinds of enhancement than we think. When it comes to how our lives go, factors that we tell ourselves should not have an effect, or that should be trivial, can nevertheless turn out to be important on the data. How we respond to that is currently an open ethical question.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Francesca Minerva for the references

[1] D.Hamermesh, Beauty Pays: why Attractive People are more Successful, Princeton UniversityPress, 2013.

[2] C.Landry, A.Lange et al. (2006) Toward An Understanding Of The Economics of Charity: Evidence From A Field Experiment, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, v121(2,May), 747-782.

[3] N.Mocan, E.Tekin, Ugly Criminals, The Review of Economics and Statistics, February 2010, 92(1): 15–30.

[4] M. G. Efran, ‘‘The Effect of Physical Appearance on the Judgment of Guilt, Interpersonal Attraction, andSeverity of Recommended Punishment in a Simulated Jury Task,’’Journal of Research in Personality 8 (1974): pp. 45–54

[5] A. M. Griffin, J. H. Langlois, Stereotype Directionality and Attractiveness Stereotyping: Is Beauty Good or is Ugly Bad?, Soc Cogn. 2006 April ; 24(2): 187–206.

[6] M. L. Glocker, D.D. Langleben et al. Baby Schema in Infant Faces Induces Cuteness Perception and Motivation for Caretaking in Adults, Ethology, 115 (2009) 257–263.

[7] Volk, A. & Quinsey, V. L. 2002: The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Hum. Nat. 13, 437—455.

[8] Stephan, C.W., & Langlois, J.H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child Development, 55, 576-585.

[9] Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Casey, R. J. & Sawin, D. B. 1995: Infant attractiveness predicts maternal behaviors and attitudes. Dev. Psychol. 31, 464—472.

[10] J. Rich, ‘‘Effects of Children’s Physical Attractiveness on Teacher’s Evaluations’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 67 (1975): pp. 599–609.

[11] Dion, K. K. Physical attractiveness and evaluationsof children’s transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 207-213.

[12] E. Walster et al., ‘‘Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (1966): pp. 508–516

[13] Brislin, R. W., & Lewis, S. A. (1968). Dating and physical attractiveness: Replication. Psychological Reports, 22, 976.

[14] Lynn, M., and B. A. Shurgot. ‘‘Responses to Lonely Hearts Advertisements: Effects of Reported Physical Attractiveness, Physique, and Coloration.’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 10 (1984): 349–357.