Research Questions: The objective of this paper is to investigate animal welfare and cosmetology from a moral philosophical framework. Is animal testing universally unethical or contingent on circumstance? In particular, is animal testing considered unethical in the cosmetics industry? If so, how do corporate entities, governments, and citizens justify the production and purchase of cosmetic products tested on animals? Are corporations inherently wicked, are the psychopathic, innately selfish, competitive beings? Cosmetic animal testing appears to satisfy a lower form of utilitarianism. Economic reductionists argue that consumption fulfills desires; however, these desires are not necessarily “good.” Makeup promises confidence and happiness
…show more content…
This arises from the cosmetic industry’s superficial need to maximize profit, the lack of government regulation and oversight in countries, such as Canada, and civilians who purchase animal tested products consciously or ignorantly, countered by animal liberationists who protest against it.
Conclusion: The anticipated conclusion for this paper will place moral accountability to the corporation, government, and its civilians on animal exploitation. However, the sentience of human beings also exploits the vulnerabilities of the marketplace. Aristotle’s theory on natural slavery has received dissent by fellow philosophers over the years. Though utilitarianism acknowledges non-humans have the capacity to suffer, the theory is reductionist. How does one quantify pain and pleasure of animals accurately?
Furthermore, its research is not in the advancement of human welfare, but fulfilling an empty vessel of human desire. From a deontological perspective, animal testing measures are completely unethical and unnecessary. Capitalism is not natural, but a constructed that is subject to …show more content…
John Frank addresses the institutional barriers between the public and industries that exploit animals, which causes the public to base consumption and political decisions on a very limited scope of information. The “Right to Know” movement encourages citizens to know information about their government. Proponents of an extreme free market, Adam Smith and Stanley Jevons, would argue that regulation is unnecessary because ethical issues can be resolved within the marketplace by consumers making choices based on their ethical preferences. However, consumer sovereignty is merely an illusion if information is restricted to the public
This arises from the cosmetic industry’s superficial need to maximize profit, the lack of government regulation and oversight in countries, such as Canada, and civilians who purchase animal tested products consciously or ignorantly, countered by animal liberationists who protest against it.
Conclusion: The anticipated conclusion for this paper will place moral accountability to the corporation, government, and its civilians on animal exploitation. However, the sentience of human beings also exploits the vulnerabilities of the marketplace. Aristotle’s theory on natural slavery has received dissent by fellow philosophers over the years. Though utilitarianism acknowledges non-humans have the capacity to suffer, the theory is reductionist. How does one quantify pain and pleasure of animals accurately?
Furthermore, its research is not in the advancement of human welfare, but fulfilling an empty vessel of human desire. From a deontological perspective, animal testing measures are completely unethical and unnecessary. Capitalism is not natural, but a constructed that is subject to …show more content…
John Frank addresses the institutional barriers between the public and industries that exploit animals, which causes the public to base consumption and political decisions on a very limited scope of information. The “Right to Know” movement encourages citizens to know information about their government. Proponents of an extreme free market, Adam Smith and Stanley Jevons, would argue that regulation is unnecessary because ethical issues can be resolved within the marketplace by consumers making choices based on their ethical preferences. However, consumer sovereignty is merely an illusion if information is restricted to the public