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…
At the fore front, Animal rights charity PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) lead the charge established in several countries and have a 3,158,585 following on Facebook. We can see by PETA 'S large support group, which shows the cruelty applied to animals in the testing process creates a large degree of unhappiness.
Countries that have banned cosmetic testing on animals are the European Union, Norway, Israel, India and New Zealand. Although the United States is considering an amendment of their Animal Rights bill to include a ban on cosmetic testing, they are still yet to implement this ban. A significant amount of the western world have deemed cosmetic testing on animals un-ethical. If the majority is unhappy with the state of affairs than by utilitarian standards, cosmetic testing on animals is unethical.
Kantian ethics was founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant believed that human life was to be revered above all else. Rachels (2010) “on his view human beings have an “intrinsic worth” or “dignity.” (pp. …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
At the fore front, Animal rights charity PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) lead the charge established in several countries and have a 3,158,585 following on Facebook. We can see by PETA 'S large support group, which shows the cruelty applied to animals in the testing process creates a large degree of unhappiness.
Countries that have banned cosmetic testing on animals are the European Union, Norway, Israel, India and New Zealand. Although the United States is considering an amendment of their Animal Rights bill to include a ban on cosmetic testing, they are still yet to implement this ban. A significant amount of the western world have deemed cosmetic testing on animals un-ethical. If the majority is unhappy with the state of affairs than by utilitarian standards, cosmetic testing on animals is unethical.
Kantian ethics was founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. Kant believed that human life was to be revered above all else. Rachels (2010) “on his view human beings have an “intrinsic worth” or “dignity.” (pp. …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