Is it all just the selfish pursuit of recycling our genes and keeping the Human Race from going extinct? Readers, I pondered all this and the ethics of throwing a fat man in front of a trolley to save five thin workers — most people wouldn't do it, apparently for biologically-ingrained moral reasons —over the weekend, when I ventured deep into the 90 zillion word philosophical abyss that was the cover story of the New York Times Magazine. I did it so you wouldn't have to, and I probably should have just gotten drunk because all I got for ya:

Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, "Man will become better when you show him what he is like."

The Moral Instinct [NY Times]

HYPNOTIC:

um why does she have so many lines around her eyes shes been rich for like 10 years
my mom is 54 and doesnt have that many wrinkles wtf

JERSEYLICIOUS:

They took away half her arm! And gave her Elisha Cuthbert's face shape (and age). And God forbid an almost-40 year old woman has a few lines around her eyes. Wow. Just... wow.

ONCEUPONATIME:

Wow! She DOES have arms! I was wondering how the flock she was holding herself up. And, ya know, she still looks really good...for a human. (As opposed to the Cherry 3000 version on the "finished" cover.)

MISSMADE:

I really want to kill myself after the thought "Wow. They did a good job."
What the fuck is wrong with me.

PISSER:

I re-touch for a living and to be quiet honest these boys (because it's usually men that re-touch) went liquify happy on her arm.

TRIXIE FROM TORONTO:

All I want for Christmas is my own personal photo-shopper.

THEGINTHECITY:

I feel pretty darn good about myself right now. My arms and backfat look just like Faith Hill's (real) arms and backfat!

CONNPOSSIBLE:

for some reason, I cant stop laughing that they even rounded out that wisp of hair on the left side of her face.

SHEISTOLERABLE:

What's amazing is 90% of what they did to her body could've been skipped if she just sat up straight. This is fabulous, though. Worth every pen-well, maybe not, but still fabulous.

THATSHOT:

You'd think they could do something about her roots after going thru so much trouble.

EDITRESS:

thank you, jezebel! i had heard legends of elizabeth hurley's nickel sized pores and drew barrymore's back fat, but there is nothing like an animated gif to drive it home.

ONE_MORE_SALUTE_TO_VANITY:

That's it. I'm off to revive Ophelia.

C_WEBB:

Wow. You could take all the scraps they snipped and make a picture of Nicole Richie.

THENWEMADEOUT

It's not just her arm - her thigh is about 1/2 the size of the original too. WHY DID THEY DO THAT to her jaw?? Can none of these celebrities put it in a contract that they refuse to be photoshopped into oblivion?? That Dove ad has nothing on this scary jumping comparison.

THEREMUSTBEAPONY:

She looks like the typical overly tanned gone-to-fat desperate-to-look-younger (dressed inappropriately for her age) middle-aged woman who was once unimaginatively hot-ish. In other words, pre-photoshop, she looks a lot like me. Prettier hair though, but yes, thinning; and maybe the camera does add 10 lbs because i think she's quite a bit more of a fatty than me too. Personally, I can never get past the distorted look of her "WHAAATTTTT??!!" into the camera when she was outraged at not being named Country Enertainer of the Year, particularly as she was already taking bows before the name was announced ... and losing to Carrie Underwood who is younger, hotter, and ostensibly more talented. I feel for her (Faith) ... as least my fade into into ignomity is a private undocumented one. But i'm not a sore loser either.

SALLY TOMATO:

Eh, this isn't so incendiary. Can you get your hands on someone we all collectively hate next time? I for one would love to see Posh looking more Miss Havisham than Fembot.

MCPASTRY

It's also interesting that she looks more down-to-earth, female-friendly in the untouched photo because her pose in comfortable and open, whereas the touched up version makes her look more come-hither-ly, as if men are buying redbook. Although I wonder if market research says that women respond to sexy pics of women better than friendly pics of women...does anyone know?

MAULLEIGH:

I hope someone didn't get fired for this. I worked at a fashion catalog where we had early pictures of a famous model girlfriend in really stupid outfits. I kept thinking of uploading them to the internets but didn't cuz I figured I'd LOSE MY JOB if I was ever found out.

LADYSHARK :

What is more shocking with Faith Hill on Redbook is how they seem to have taken her character away: "when it's her with all lines and beauty marks - she's got character and then suddely she's just another pretty empty painted up doll face," my friend Froglozoid said. And me to reply: "Yeah, it's not the same soul."

LENSDOG:

Are you kidding? I've worked with the lady and she is a great talent, but like most female stars she is very concerned about her appearance, and undoubtedly had a big say in what pictures would appear on the cover. That doesn't make here a bad person; there is a long history of female stars protecting their publicity photos. This is just the technique of the new century, and I'll bet George Hurrell would approve.

MEECH:

As a artist with a background in anatomy — I think this is priceless. They've given her a severe case of Scoliosis by whittling her back into an hourglass curve! They've also eliminated all the "slow" lines of the body (the concave areas where the body can bend on itself) to eliminate any hint of actual flesh on thiose bones. It's Mannerism at it's best — the artificial trumping the natural.