Many things are only acceptable in a given radius according to evolutionary presets.
Eyes that are too close together or too far apart will be always deemed unattractive, but there is some wiggle room.
The preferable hip ratio has been steady for thousands of years, based on what one can tell from statues and playboy models. It's around .7, but there's outliers here too, it deviates a whole 10% in either direction for a rather large amount of the population.
Primates in general also prefer fairer females and swarthier males,
because lighter skin spells out youth and fertility, whilst darker skin means a mate who has survived longer, which may mean better genes.
But things like eye and hair colour are to be regarded as subjective, until we've found reason to believe they're not.
This question is altogether vague, human attractiveness tends to be objective, which is what I interpreted the question to be asking, but beauty in inanimate objects tends to be subjective. Hell, some people thought Picasso was an artist.
Here's a link to a podcast of a great guy who explains it very well: https://soundcloud.com/matt-walsh-theblaze/not-everyone-is-beautiful-41415
(Just a disclaimer, the guy is a Christian. If you can't tolerate religion, I suggest you not listen to him. Just saying.)
If beauty is subjective, then you can argue that everything ever is beautiful and then the word has absolutely no meaning. Some things are beautiful and some aren't. That's just reality. Some people find poop, or Hitler, or slavery beautiful. If you say it's in the eye of the beholder, then you can't tell them, "Oh, no, John. Adolf Hitler is actually and evil and hideous. He's not beautiful."
Saying beauty is subjective just means you don't believe in right and wrong. If you did, then you would agree that some things are beautiful, but not all things are. Not trying to shame anyone, but I'm just trying to show you where your logic goes. Have a great day!
We have girls that every guy thinks is pretty. We have girls that every guy thinks is ugly. So id say yes. With morality. Nothing that someone considers to be wrong is considered to be wrong by most people. For every precept we have there are at least 2 or 3 that contradict it. So morality is definately not objective. If it was objective our moralities wouldnt constantly be changing.
There is actually extensive research declaring that there actually is a system for "beauty" hard-wired into our systems. While all beauty is not universal, the human face in particular can be shown to universally appear more "beautiful" based on geometric comparisons.
This link provides more information, if you're interested:
Good restaurants are more popular than bad ones and they can charge more as well.
Attractive women are attractive around the world.
The value of art varies widely based on quality. The well know artists were either expanding the definition of what art is or they were producing high quality art works or both.
There are universal concepts of beauty that rely on symmetry, balance, flow of line, positive space, negative space.
It is amazing that it takes me less than a second to recognize beauty, when it can be so hard to explain why a woman, a meal, or a painting is beautiful.
I personally believe beauty is objective somewhat. Many different races and cultures have different ideas about what beauty is. Most people, however, can agree to a certain degree about if someone or something is beautiful. Culture may modify our perception of beauty. Some people have different taste, but we all can say something is beautiful as people. The vast majority of people would agree to some extent, as they would if we said something was ugly.
I am curious what you think on the matter itself. Some say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some say that mathematical attractiveness is what really matters. My question to you is simply which viewpoint do you side with more (if either) and why do you?
While most people share similarities in their subjective conception of beauty that doesn't prove that those who don't share those similarities are wrong. Their concept of beauty is just different.
Here's an analogy. Most people hate the taste of anchovies, yet whether anchovies taste good or not is not an objective feature of anchovies. It is still subjective and some people like how they taste.
The idea of objective beauty could set in motion a slippery slope to a time where having the 'wrong' conception of beauty is considered an illness and forcibly cured (as technology progresses this will become possible!) when perhaps there is a reason related to our survival for why small numbers of people have different ideas about beauty. Or whether there is or not there is something to be said for the beauty of diversity and difference. There is too much of a trend to call anything that doesn't fit the statistical norm "wrong" and for people to think that we can know perfectly how all other humans should be.
People treating "proof by majority" or "argumentum ad populum" as valid is worrisome and could lead to the destruction of diversity among humans.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no specific mathematical equation for beauty.
The physics of a glorious sunset do not matter in the moment, just the image the sunset creates.
The speed and tone of the light is subjective in the moment and in the location of the viewpoint.
Beautiful works of art often lack symmetry out of specific purpose, to help illustrate the reality of beauty's subjective nature.
People are not universally beautiful. Many beautiful men will not be considered beautiful by other men. Does that mean the mathematics of their beauty was inefficient? Not at all.
Beauty is not objective at all.
One can find beauty in a single songbird's notes, where others might find annoyance at the sound.
One can find beauty in a snowfall, where a farmer sees only their withering crops.
One can find beauty in a storm, even if that storm brings destruction to some.
Beauty is entirely subjective.
Now “objective” usually connotes having to do with facts about the physical, material world. Subjectivity means “in the mind of a subject”. A “subject” is the thinker of thoughts, the haver of experiences. Objective truths are true apart from what goes on in any subject who is thinking about the truth. Most philosophers agree that truths about that material world, or at least a lot of them, are like that. After all, the material world was around for a long time before there were any minds to think about it. Some believe that truths about numbers are also objective, while others believe they fit better somehow into the next category we will discuss.
These are truths about phenomena that is in some way depends on there being minds, that is, thinking, perceiving, subjects. Such truths depend on subjectivity, on there being minds around to perceive and think thoughts about the things the truths are about.
Galileo, Descartes, Boyle, and Locke all were impressed with the difference between “primary” and “secondary” qualities. Primary qualities were objective in the sense we now assign to this word. Objects would have shape, size and motion whether or not there were any minds around to perceive them. But, it seemed, at least to these thinkers, that objects would not have secondary qualities, that is, colors, sounds, smells and tastes, if there were not minds to see, hear, smell and taste them. The idea is that secondary qualities have to do with the effects that the objects have on minds. No minds, no secondary qualities. So secondary qualities are subjective. They are in the eye of the beholder.
Where does beauty fit in? Is it an objective, mind-independent property of things? I’m sure that some philosophers have thought this, but it doesn’t seem very plausible. Lots of beautiful objects, like mountains and forests and lakes, could exist without minds. But they wouldn’t really be beautiful would they, if there weren’t minds around to gain some enjoyment from observing them?
Is beauty like a secondary quality, mind-independent, but intersubjective? That is, if people are in the right conditions, will they agree on what is beautiful and what is not? What would the right conditions be? Not just good lighting, but also, perhaps, a proper upbringing, a well-trained eye, ear, or palate. I have some sympathy with this idea. It seems to me that there ought to be intersubjective agreement that the pop music of the sixties is better than that of the benighted eighties, for example.
So that leaves beauty in the third category, the doubly subjective, not only dependent on minds for its existence, but not even something on which minds can be expected to agree, even in favorable circumstances. The Mona Lisa, Michelangelo’s David, the Chrysler Building---- like the taste of lima beans, or the BeeGees, some people like them, some people don’t.
Beauty is viewed differently in different cultures. For beauty to be objective would imply that all people see the thing as beautiful. If we are attributing beauty to a person in a current culture, such as the U.S., the person from the U.S. would consider the person beautiful but a member of an indigenous African tribe that practices lip plates would not. Also even within the U.S. some would consider the aforementioned individual differently. Beauty in inanimate objects or nature depends on the mindset of the viewer.