Home > Pets & Animals > Animal Rights & Issues
Is it morally OK to test cosmetics on animals?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 16% | 249 votes | Total: 1566 votes | |
| No | 84% | 1317 votes |
Yes
by Harry Lamer
Created on: September 16, 2007
Define morality. Define humanity. Define rights. Define human rights. Define animal rights. One of the biggest misconception of all time is the idea that morality and rights are a given, as though the words were imprinted somewhere in some immortal text or other to decree what we should or should not do.
Not even the Bible can clearly define any of the above. Sorry, the Ten Commandments just ain't enough - and before we get into a religious debate - no, i doubt if any of the other religious texts can either.
How do I know? You see, there are three factors in life that determine the history of humanity. No, they are not death, change and taxes. But change is indeed one of them - and the other two are power and reason.
Not so long ago in Earth years - say give or take tens of thousands of years (it's not that long compared with the dinosaurs) - if you are not feeling righty-oh about the next door caveman leering at your wife, a skull-crushing blow from your oversized club should do the trick. Now that is power.
Ten thousand years down the road, a distinctly human trait called reason has taught us the importance of the collective over the individual, evolving us into what we now call civilisation. Now that is change.
Ten thousand years ago, we wouldn't have cared less if we skinned an animal alive or bashed its head in a hundred times so long as we had food on the table. Today, we wonder about the most humane way to kill chickens so we can crispy fry them to perfection for fat, spoilt kids.
It doesn't even make sense. How do you kill an animal that you don't generally call human HUMANELY?
Now we are arguing over whether it is morally right to test cosmetics on animals before we sell them in the market to women to beautify themselves so that we will want to watch them in the movies.
Sorry about reality - but that's the way life is now. As disgusting as the idea may be, it serves a purpose. Testing on animals prevents the undesirable possibility of women overdosing their faces with arsenic or some such. Too bad for the fluffy white rabit. We have the power to spray-paint any lab rat we like and we will do it if it serves a profitable purpose.
But does that mean we can do whatever we like recklessly? That's where reason kicks in. All the vegetarians, save-the-ozoners, and whatever rights activists do make a statement. They do help to keep things going off the rocker - not to mention preventing the cute little minks from turning into furry coats.
That's how the world works - Power, Reason, Change - that's how it goes down the line. We may not say a prayer for every hamster that sacrifices itself for a worthy cause, but we don't have to kill every hamster either - some do make good pets.
Maybe ten thousand years down the milky way, scientists will be testing their nuclear radioactive warpspace hyperdrives on stinking, slimy cockcroaches instead. Now that's a critter we don't want too much of. Right?
Learn more about this author, Harry Lamer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Trish Austin
Created on: February 15, 2009 Last Updated: March 30, 2010
First, it is immoral to test cosmetics on animals because it is cruel and inhumane. Has shampoo ever dripped into your eye? Unless, you are using a shampoo with no chemicals added, it burns horribly. You have to flush your eye with water for a minute or longer to make the pain stop. Now, what about a rabbit, who day in and day out is subjected to what equates to "shampoo in the eye" over and over again. But, the purpose is to see how far a chemical can get in the rabbit's eye before it causes permanent damage. Animals feel pain. They have pain receptors just like humans. What a horrible existence? A life that knows only suffering and pain. None of God's creatures should live only for suffering. Especially, when it comes down to why they are suffering. The pain inflicted on them is for superficial purposes. Make up is not a cure for cancer. Make up is one of the superficial non essentials in our lives
.
Next, why should a cosmetics company get away with these despicable acts towards animals? Just because they have money? What if an individual had rabbits. And this person continuously tortured them. A number of animal rights agencies could be called and the animals would be taken from the person.The one individual who gets his or her rabbits taken away has only hurt a minimal number of rabbits. The cosmetic company, on the other hand, has injured and killed thousands upon thousands of animals over the years. Both scenarios are morally wrong. But, using a utilitarian approach, the makeup industry has done more harm than the one individual. However, the cosmetic company is allowed to treat animals with brutality on a daily basis.
Next, testing cosmetics on animals is not necessary. The companies perform these tests out of greed and out of fear. Greed, because they want to come out with new products that work better than their competitors and are less expensive to manufacture. Therefore, they animal test so they can make more money. However, if this new formulation injures a person. For instance, if it causes a person to go blind. The data collected in the animal research can be used to prove that the company did all that they could to prevent this tragedy. In addition, they use the data to show that the person is flawed. The person is not normal. Or the person must have misused the product. The data proves it. For example, the cosmetic company presents in court, only 1 in 1,000 rabbits went blind. So, this person must have been using the product as not intended or they did not read the instructions etc.. The cosmetic company's lawyers come up with many arguments using animal testing as one of their defense tactics. When, there are so many cosmetic ingredients being used today that are known not to cause harm. Or the harm is known to be minimal. But, still some cosmetics companies choose to animal test.
Clearly, testing cosmetics on animals is morally wrong. When alternatives exists that make animal testing obsolete. Using animals for the purpose of torture. How could that ever be morally right?
Learn more about this author, Trish Austin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley