Like you, I was struck to my core when reading Singer’s examples of the cruelty to animals during experimentation. There is no excuse for such horrendous treatment to animals.
You asked, “Where does one draw the line between testing for "the good of mankind" and "just out of curiosity"? Is there a better way than using animals?”
I don’t think animals should be used for “curiosity” experiments under any circumstances. I have mixed feelings about using animals for testing. On the one hand, some experiments are beneficial to our knowledge about medicine and diseases, but I think you have to make a distinction between which tests are necessary and have a high percentage of leading to a result and the tests that will most likely be a waste of time. I am against using animals to test beauty products, they are arbitrary and we don’t need to waste a life over shampoo. However, we do have a big need for cancer research because it kills millions of people every year.
I think the line that needs to be drawn is a question of need. Animals are alive just as we are and deserve fair treatment. We don’t need to experiment just for the sake of experimenting. I think a good question to ask ourselves is whether we would sacrifice our own pets for an experiment. Would you give your bunny to and experimenter testing a new cosmetic product, probably not. But you might consider giving your dog to an experimenter who has found a medicine that if given to your dog had a high percentage of curing cancer.
Do you think there is a need to use animals for the testing of beauty products?
You asked, “Where does one draw the line between testing for "the good of mankind" and "just out of curiosity"? Is there a better way than using animals?”
I don’t think animals should be used for “curiosity” experiments under any circumstances. I have mixed feelings about using animals for testing. On the one hand, some experiments are beneficial to our knowledge about medicine and diseases, but I think you have to make a distinction between which tests are necessary and have a high percentage of leading to a result and the tests that will most likely be a waste of time. I am against using animals to test beauty products, they are arbitrary and we don’t need to waste a life over shampoo. However, we do have a big need for cancer research because it kills millions of people every year.
I think the line that needs to be drawn is a question of need. Animals are alive just as we are and deserve fair treatment. We don’t need to experiment just for the sake of experimenting. I think a good question to ask ourselves is whether we would sacrifice our own pets for an experiment. Would you give your bunny to and experimenter testing a new cosmetic product, probably not. But you might consider giving your dog to an experimenter who has found a medicine that if given to your dog had a high percentage of curing cancer.
Do you think there is a need to use animals for the testing of beauty products?
No comments:
Post a Comment