Ethical Considerations of Animal Testing in Non-Medical Consumer Products, Thesis of Business Accounting

Download Ethical Considerations of Animal Testing in Non-Medical Consumer Products and more Thesis Business Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! PHI208 Final Paper PHI208 - Ethics and Moral Reasoning Part 1: Introduction Is it ethical to test non-medical consumer products, such as cosmetics, on living animals? Non Medical consumer products, such as cosmetics, have become part of our everyday lives as humans. Also as humans we have become accustomed to using animals as test subjects prior to ever using humans. These animals are not voluntary test subjects, they are born or adopted into the world of the testing laboratory. There have always been 2 sides to the ethical argument but as times have become more modern we have become more aware and requiring more ethical choices when it comes to non medical product testing. “Millions of animals are used every year in oftentimes extremely painful and distressing scientific procedures. Legislation of animal experimentation in modern societies is based on the supposition that this is ethically acceptable when certain more or less defined formal (e.g. logistical, technical) demands and ethical principles are met.” (R.Kolar 2006, animal exp.). When it comes to ethics we as humans are pre programmed to give humans more rights than animals so many do not pick up a bottle of cosmetics and think about the animals that have been tested to create this product to be perfect for you. Many advocates over the years have made it more known that it is unethical to test on innocent animals and have even caused many companies to be completely “cruelty free”, meaning no animals were used in the making of this product or line of products. With these ethical questions becoming more and more of an ethical issue with most consumers it has become a major selling point for many companies. They place logos and make sure to mention in ads that they are cruelty free and therefore should be your choice over the others who are not. These concepts and more will be discussed throughout this essay. Part 2: Ethical Argument Ethics are the theories that place great emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. With all of the options we have in today’s society, it is extremely unethical to test non-medical consumer products on living animals. Living animals, just like living humans, should have the equal right to not be used in testing without consent. As animals do not have the voice to say yes or no, they should not be made subject of continuous testing for the benefit of humans. What makes humans so much better than animals that we use them instead of ourselves to test items such as cosmetics? If we can use it on animals we should feel just as safe using it on a consenting adult to test on. Also, “Animal tests have scientific limitations, as different species respond differently when exposed to the same chemicals. Consequently, results from animal tests may not be relevant to humans, as they can under-or overestimate real-world hazards to people.” (https://www.humanesociety.org). There are many movements in the world, maily the “cruelty-free” movement, that are standing up against this very issue and hope to end and ban animal testing in our country like many other countries have already done. Part 3: Explanation and Defense Deontology is the study of the nature of duty and obligation. The philosopher behind the theory of deontology is Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who often wrote about morality and respect in humanity. This duty, we might say, is imposed by reason. This is the core of Immanuel Kant’s account of moral duty: Duties are demands, obligations, or laws that are ultimately grounded not in any external authority like God, nature, or society but simply in that key characteristic that all humans share—our capacity to think about the reasons we have for acting in a specific way and to act accordingly. (Thames, B. (2018) Ch. 4.2). This moral law that Kant sees is categorical imperative, for example, the act of treating humanity as if every person was you. Kant looks at everything as one wll act in accord with the moral law and out of respect for the law rather than out of natural inclinations. This means that people will act with the moral thought rather than with the action they would normally take without thought. This principle applies to the question of ethics in non medical consumer goods being tested on animals in a few ways. We have a duty to test products prior to putting them out on the market to assure they are safe, but, morally doing it on animals who do not have a choice is wrong and not showing respect to the animals, even if they are rodents. The issues with animal testing all come down to duty vs morality and the argument that has been going on for decades, if it is ethical to continue to test on animals for non medical reasons. With that being said, the question of if it is ethical to test on animals for nonmedical consumer goods such as cosmetics is right in that lane of moral thoughts and actions. Testing of animals for things like cosmetics is an action, an action that can be examined ethically without even looking at or needing to mention the consequences. Using animals to test cosmetics and other consumer goods that we want to be sure are safe for humans to use has many activists and morally concerned individuals up in arms. Looking at the actions of those who are testing on animals, we see that they have other options, volunteer humans is the number one option I can think of. According to Kant’s theory of deontology, even though animals may live through the testing, the action of performing on an animal who has no way of saying yes or no, is morally wrong. If this was done to humans, nobody would think twice about how morally wrong it is to hold them hostage to test things like lipstick on them in hope they do not react negatively to the product. This happens to animals such as monkeys and rats every day and we only have a half sized movement of people who truly are fighting for the equal rights of these animals. Many believe in Kant’s theory of deontology and are standing up for morality. This has caused many companies to go cruelty free meaning they do not test on animals which has been a growing sales point over the past decade. Kant’s views may not be without flaws but has an amazing point when you can look at just actions without consequences and see how morally wrong this situation is. Part 4: Objection and Response We have been testing non-medical consumer goods on animals for over a century and it has never failed us so, there is no reason to stop if it works. Animals have played such an important part in development of consumer goods over the last 100 years or more. Without animal testing we may