Kant's Decision To Ban Animal Testing
1476 Words
6 Pages
New Zealand has seen the ban of cosmetics testing on animals. Isaac Davidson, reporter for the New Zealand Herald released an article on 31st March 2015, explaining the government’s decision to ban the use of animals for cosmetic research. The topic of animal testing is taken very seriously around the world, with the public of Britain protesting for decades and addressing their government to take the necessary steps to ban it. An example of this is the Lush cosmetics campaign, which took place on the 24th April 2012. In the 1980’s American animal rights activist Henry Spira, bought a full-page in the New York Times with an outcry to help protect the animals used in cosmetics testing. These are just two of the many varying examples used in the
…show more content…
The final aspect of Kant’s theory is the respect for persons; people should not be treated as a tool to your own desires but treated with dignity.
Kant’s view on animals was sure and unwavering. Rachels (2010) quotes his lectures on ethics “But so far as animals are concern, we have no direct duties. Animals… are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.” (pp. 136) Using Kant’s Categorical imperative we must observe if the ban of animal testing can be universalised. The outlawing of cosmetics testing by Kant’s standards would mean the ban of medical testing on animals as well. This would be a massive setback for medical research, and potentially mean that the discovery of certain breakthroughs would not be possible. I believe that this is something that cannot be universalized. If we analyse another aspect of Kant’s theory being the importance of motive, we will see that the motive for research on animals is indeed a good motive. To make sure the final product is usable by the consumer and does not cause medical harm. Animals are only valued as long as they serve human purposes. In relation to Isaac Davidson’s article in the New Zealand Herald, Kant would strongly disagree with Animal activist and Green party MP Mojo Mathers. Davidson. I (2015) "It 's fantastic that we will now be able to hold our head up high as a country and say that we too have banned this cruel and outdated practice." Retrieved April 3rd. If we are to go by Kant’s description for the treatment of animals, if it benefits humanity how they are treated is irrelevant because the end result must always be
The final aspect of Kant’s theory is the respect for persons; people should not be treated as a tool to your own desires but treated with dignity.
Kant’s view on animals was sure and unwavering. Rachels (2010) quotes his lectures on ethics “But so far as animals are concern, we have no direct duties. Animals… are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.” (pp. 136) Using Kant’s Categorical imperative we must observe if the ban of animal testing can be universalised. The outlawing of cosmetics testing by Kant’s standards would mean the ban of medical testing on animals as well. This would be a massive setback for medical research, and potentially mean that the discovery of certain breakthroughs would not be possible. I believe that this is something that cannot be universalized. If we analyse another aspect of Kant’s theory being the importance of motive, we will see that the motive for research on animals is indeed a good motive. To make sure the final product is usable by the consumer and does not cause medical harm. Animals are only valued as long as they serve human purposes. In relation to Isaac Davidson’s article in the New Zealand Herald, Kant would strongly disagree with Animal activist and Green party MP Mojo Mathers. Davidson. I (2015) "It 's fantastic that we will now be able to hold our head up high as a country and say that we too have banned this cruel and outdated practice." Retrieved April 3rd. If we are to go by Kant’s description for the treatment of animals, if it benefits humanity how they are treated is irrelevant because the end result must always be