“God made people in his own image” is a common phrase just like “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.” These phrases, and most like them, allude to the external physical features of a human being. Focusing on the external features, however, overshadow the internal ones of human beings, which are equally important aspects of beauty. Essentially, there are two different types of beauty, inner and outer beauty. The former deals with the internal attributes of a person, while the latter focuses on the external ones. Being a controversial concept, any perception of beauty depends on the judgement of the beholder, and what informs it. It is difficult to expressly say which type of beauty is better than the other because either of them describe important characteristics of a human being. Physical beauty describes elegance, while inner beauty describes traits; physical beauty involves symmetrical facial features while inner beauty involves intellect; in comparison, inner beauty would be more preferable than physical beauty.
Physical beauty generally concerns a person’s outer appearance, including their bodily elegance and complexion. Concerning complexion, for instance, depending on where a person comes from, they would consider a white, brown, or black complexion as beautiful. Apart from this definition being highly dependent on a person’s opinion and their cultural background, it can also be manipulated. According to McCabe, Timothy and Antonella (1), women have embarked on using make-up to transform their outward appearance in a manner that suits them and their understanding of physical beauty. On the other hand, inner beauty concentrates on a person’s unique traits. For example, their behavior or even sense of humor. Regardless of their physical features, a person with high a sense of humor or one that is well-behaved is considered beautiful.
Physical beauty has also always been attached to symmetrical, or nearly symmetrical facial features. Associating beauty with perfect facial symmetry requires a strict definition of the aspects of this symmetry. The quest for this symmetrical appearance has thrown people into an endless search of it through medical practices. Saha and Sumita (59) remark that aesthetic or cosmetic surgery has come to the rescue of women looking to edge closer to the symmetrical requirements of perfect physical beauty. Medicine has become a tool for beauty and not just its traditional role of healing. Conversely, inner beauty comprises intellect and involves people with good and humane intention towards others. In other words, people who love, protect, and care for others, and those with a high moral standing, all of which can only be learned, but cannot be acquired through medical procedures.
While beauty is subjective and picking a better form of it would be difficult, inner beauty is more preferable. For instance, a disfigured or severely disabled person with a good heart and behavior would be viewed as not beautiful from the perspective of physical beauty. In fact, Anderson (182) observes that the stereotype has discredited the contribution of disabled people to the general good of society. It is not anyone’s wish to be disabled, implying that disability cannot be used to consider people ugly. Their moral standing, good behavior, and ability to make the world a better place should be held in high esteem above their external appearances. Inner beauty can make an impact on the world and society, while physical or outer beauty only serves to make people feel better about themselves.
In conclusion, beauty is a highly subjective concept. Its experience largely depends on a beholders background and understanding of beauty. Physical beauty describes how a person looks good on the outside, while inner beauty concerns the internal features of a human being. Defining any form of beauty should be contextual. Both perspectives of beauty rely and depend on each other. Inner beauty is still more preferable as physical beauty is desirable.