This paper is investigating animal welfare and cosmetology from a moral philosophical framework. Cosmetic experiments on animals are not performed strictly for medial purposes, nor do they fulfill human or ecological needs. Although there are alternatives in place, the cosmetic industry’s primary goal is to maximize profit for the greater good of shareholders. Large corporations are best thought of as mechanical entities and machines for making money. Humans use utilitarianism to justify or condemn actions for animal rights, whereas deontologists assume that actions are immoral by principle, regardless of the consequences. Furthermore, the government is responsible for ensuring and supervising ethical operations in the workplace. If people
…show more content…
These animals are subjected to the very hazardous defects they seek to prevent. With alternative scientific methods already in place, the abolishment of cosmetic animal testing has already been instituted in Europe. The seventh amendment to the European Union Cosmetics Directive prohibited putting animal-tested cosmetics on the market in after 2013 (Fentem, Chamberlain, & Sangster, 2004). Although government inspections are required at some types of animal facilities, the regulatory bodies are closely linked with the industry and may have a shared interest in maintaining the status quo (Frank, 2004). Therefore, the Canadian governments lack of oversight is synonymous with Herbert Spencer’s condemnation for state regulation. For Spencer, cooperation in industrial society must be voluntary, not compulsory. He argued that it would “penalize the superior citizens and their offspring in favour of the inferior” (Hofstadter, 1944, p. 43). Here, Spencerism is parallel to the Aristotelian perspective that humans are superior to animals. Neoliberal doctrine is a way of naturalizing an escape of economic injustice, thereby ignoring moral issues. This is neither science nor philosophy, but rather an ideology. The state is the creator of the corporation and thus an author to the
These animals are subjected to the very hazardous defects they seek to prevent. With alternative scientific methods already in place, the abolishment of cosmetic animal testing has already been instituted in Europe. The seventh amendment to the European Union Cosmetics Directive prohibited putting animal-tested cosmetics on the market in after 2013 (Fentem, Chamberlain, & Sangster, 2004). Although government inspections are required at some types of animal facilities, the regulatory bodies are closely linked with the industry and may have a shared interest in maintaining the status quo (Frank, 2004). Therefore, the Canadian governments lack of oversight is synonymous with Herbert Spencer’s condemnation for state regulation. For Spencer, cooperation in industrial society must be voluntary, not compulsory. He argued that it would “penalize the superior citizens and their offspring in favour of the inferior” (Hofstadter, 1944, p. 43). Here, Spencerism is parallel to the Aristotelian perspective that humans are superior to animals. Neoliberal doctrine is a way of naturalizing an escape of economic injustice, thereby ignoring moral issues. This is neither science nor philosophy, but rather an ideology. The state is the creator of the corporation and thus an author to the