Hello. Ethics and society should be based on egalitarian premises. To judge people based on their looks is to ignore two fundamental truths: Beauty is highly subjective, so it would be incredibly difficult to create a hierarchy around looks; and beauty is often product of genetics, which means that someone who would be positioned at the top of the hierarchy would have done much less than more to be there. This is to say that it would completely ignore merit. I'm curious about your arguments.

This argument, however, is based on what should happen rather than what already does - even if it debatable that society already runs on lookism. Now, what you're advocating for is a society in which living opportunities are based on how good you look. That seems somewhat moderate until you notice what would people do to climb the social ladder. It wouldn't be unlikely to observe the growth of a culture of hate to the socially uglier people and one of "self-improvement", or so advertised. Children would be so obsessed with looks that studies or real childhood would be postponed or deleted from their lifes to open space for more muscle or skin care. Essentially, what already happens but on a way larger scale. Many universities have done studies on this sociological behaviour.

So you're going for a form of giving up... if you really wanted change you would prefer to advocate for an ethic system based on equality or merit rather than accepting what seems to be bad with our world. Also, it seems that you have ignored how beauty is subjective and it would be extremely difficult to serve as a criteria for structuring society. The system you keep describing when referring to job interviews would be related to low-importance jobs, if you excuse my honesty, like a McDonald's worker. I could see how looks would really matter there. Now please tell me when a possible NASA astronaut's application is turned down just because the next candidate, with highschool level education, has a better jawline.