Lookism is justified

Of course we see, and practically every other animal species (well other mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, insects at the least) have eyes and sight. But this is to interact with the environment, not for aesthetics. not everything we see we have to place an aesthetic judgment on. To me, lookism from that angle doesn't make sense.

But lookism is justified IMO since we're naturally geared towards nice appearances in others. we feel a glow around attractive people, and this stems from our evolution. So at the least, it's perfectly understandable that physically attractive people get better breaks in life.

Yes, it is perfectly understandable in some cases due to evolution and the like, but that doesn't make it good. If we said that for all things which evolution encouraged, we'd be in a primal society of greed and unjustice, with our genetics dictating our choices rather than our consciousnesses to a greater extent than today. Evolution has blessed us with an intricate consciousness (or at least of what we think to be a relatively intricate consciousness) and we should use it to rise up from our primal impulses in which evolution itself encourages.

Evolution has not blessed us with any consciousness, we are created with one.

But if you are going to base morality on evolution you won't produce anything very good...

lookism is justified

at the least, it's perfectly understandable

I think your conclusion should not be that lookism is justified, but that it's difficult to avoid, given what else you've said.

I don't see why it matters. I doubt many genuinely care if the less attractive get pushed aside.

What is it with these crazy neologisms? Must we posit discrimination on the basis of every facet of the human condition? I wonder when eye-colourism will make its grand entrance onto the stage of self-pity and victimhood. Lookism is not a thing. Since time immemorial, human beings have been attracted to beauty, proportion and order...and the predominant definition of these things change with time. In fact, back in Ancient Greece people went as far as to equate beauty with virtue and goodness. Today we all know that this is not the case. However, humans will always be drawn to things they consider appealing and pleasing. We'll never choose unsightly over neat, ugly over pretty, or pain over pleasure...but this doesn't make us "pleasurist" or "neatist". Btw, different people define all of the above things in different ways, but we'll ALWAYS choose the one most pleasing to us, even if our brand of pleasure entails pain. Now, can we please move on and save the "isms" for more serious matters?

Yes, it is perfectly understandable in some cases due to evolution and the like, but that doesn't make it good. If we said that for all things which evolution encouraged, we'd be in a primal society of greed and unjustice, with our genetics dictating our choices rather than our consciousnesses to a greater extent than today. Evolution has blessed us with an intricate consciousness (or at least of what we think to be a relatively intricate consciousness) and we should use it to rise up from our primal impulses in which evolution itself encourages.

ugly people should suck it up. they were made ugly for a reason.

For a reason, or simply unfortunate? While I may be somewhat of an elitist, there's no meaning behind people who were unfortunate enough to be born unattractive or unintelligent.

I hope you don't construct your essays like you constructed your original post. If so, I can guarantee your lecturer has uploaded them all to EssayLOL.com or used them as toilet paper.

I mean "people and animals like looking at nice things, therefore its justified". What kind of weak "argument" is that???

ugly people should suck it up. they were made ugly for a reason.

As said, the Universe chose these people to get the rough treatment.