Aesthetic Injustice

Journal of Business Ethics:1-13 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In business as elsewhere, “ugly people” are treated worse than ”pretty people.” Why is this so? This article investigates the ethics of aesthetic injustice by addressing four questions: 1. What is aesthetic injustice? 2. How does aesthetic injustice play out? 3. What are the characteristics that make people being treated unjustly? 4. Why is unattractiveness (considered to be) bad? Aesthetic injustice is defined as unfair treatment of persons due to their appearance as perceived or assessed by others. It is plays out in a variety of harms, ranging from killing (genocide), torture, violence, exclusion (social or physical), discrimination, stigmatization, epistemic injustice, harassment, pay inequity, bullying, alienation, misrecognition, stereotyping, and to prejudice. The characteristics that make people treated unjustly are (lack of) attractiveness, averageness, proportion, and homogeneity. Furthermore, prejudice, psychological biases, logical fallacies, and unwarranted fear of disease are some reasons why unattractiveness is (considered to be) bad. In sum, this study synthesizes insights from a wide range of research and draws attention to aesthetic injustice as a generic term for a form of injustice that deserves more systematic attention. Having a definition, description, and explanation of the concept makes it easier to target the problems with aesthetic injustice. As the business world is an arena of ubiquitous aesthetic injustice business ethics can take the lead in identifying, explaining, and addressing the problem.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethical Issues in Business: Perspectives from the Business Academic Community.[author unknown] - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 52 (2):141-141.
V Chemnitz East Forum 21–23 March 2001 "Human Resource Management in Transition".[author unknown] - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 26 (4):363-364.
Erratum: Applying the Principles of Gestalt Theory to Teaching Ethics.[author unknown] - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (11):880-880.
Business and Society Review.[author unknown] - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 23 (4):429-429.
Editorial: Purpose and Policy.Alex C. Michalos - 1982 - Journal of Business Ethics 1 (2):163-163.
Editorial: Purpose and Policy.Alex C. Michalos - 1982 - Journal of Business Ethics 1 (1):1-1.
Editorial: Purpose and Policy.Alex C. Michalos - 1982 - Journal of Business Ethics 1 (4):I-I.
Introduction.Hart Kevin & Hartman Geoffrey - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 51 (2):101-101.
Editorial: Conferences on Value Inquiry.James B. Wilbur - 1988 - Journal of Business Ethics 7 (6):403-403.
Introduction.Darryl Reed & J. J. McMurtry - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 86 (Suppl 1):1-2.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-04-03

Downloads
17 (#849,202)

6 months
11 (#225,837)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Is It Bad to Prefer Attractive Partners?William D'Alessandro - 2023 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 9 (2):335-354.
The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments.Richard E. Nisbett & Timothy D. Wilson - 1977 - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (4):250-256.
On the reality of cognitive illusions.Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky - 1996 - Psychological Review 103 (3):582-591.
Ugliness Is in the Gut of the Beholder.Ryan P. Doran - 2022 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 9 (5):88-146.

View all 25 references / Add more references