Why did I think that the butterfly was more attractive than the tarantula? Are some notions of beauty absolute? I think so. I can make at least one empirical argument for it: ask yourself, do you think that flowers are pretty? Why are they pretty? Who made them so? It wasn't people— Flowers are pretty because birds, bees and other insects made them so. In statistically important decisions, birds and bees chose some varieties, colors and shapes of flowers over others. By their choices, they decided which would types would flourish and which would languish. Consider that bees could have bred wrinkled brown flowers. Instead, they opted for beauty of sorts that we agree with. You might not feel that you have much in common with birds and insects, but at some level, we all agree on what is beautiful.
People and animals have bred one another for beauty too. Women are beautiful because men chose them to be, statistically, over time. And men are handsome (sometimes) because women chose a look for them, statistically, over time. You might say that men were built by women for women, or vice versa.
So, if people can find beauty in flowers and bees can find beauty in flowers, can other animals find beauty in flowers? Does a dog appreciate a meadow of flowers, for instance. If you think that the answer is yes, then it suggests that dogs are tuned into absolute beauty too. Accordingly, they must be able to distinguish beautiful people from less beautiful, the way that humans can distinguish beautiful dogs from ugly dogs—assuming beauty is absolute.
