Animal Testing for Cosmetics
Debate Rounds (4)
By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc.
This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics.
My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals.
Cruelty: text book definition 2
And yes they should be used sparingly not just subjected to cruelty for no good reason. IACUCs or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and other similar boards looks to try and minimize this exact things for both medical testing and physiological studies if you are interested look up the IACUC protocol review in which you have to hit three major requirements to be approved for testing.
to assess what stays from my last post: rats are still a alternative to humans that if disallowed from testing on create a environment which has to gamble on human lives or not try potentially beneficial products altogether. Imagine I've reconsidered all morals I had since the election results.
First of all cosmetics are a important and valuable part of our society it's not essential but they're beneficial. Appearance is undoubtedly a incredibly important part of any modern life. Physiologists agree that first impression are the strongest and hardest to change assessment of another person, people also experience the phenomena called the halo effect that's when someone assessing you (professionally or casually) identifies a strong positive trait ,like a exceptional appearance, they are more likely view other your other traits as being positive e.g the same person can be viewed as driven or bossy based on a good or bad first impressions. Cosmetics also help self esteem, when someone gets a zit or any time of blemish they can use cosmetics to help make it less noticeable and not worry about if other people are aware of it. Make up helps people achieve the look they want including not naturally available looks like bright pastels or dark Gothic colors to manage your outer appearance and vibe.
Cosmetics also are large economic business employing many workers and chemists. It also encourages spending which is good in a market economy. And many can make a hobby of it learning to contour or color theroy to help manifest their ideal image of themselves .
Rene Descartes the father of the scientific method in his discourse on method famously said "I think therefore I am" he proposed that this is a major distinction between animals and humans. Human think, animals with less complex and developed brains have yet to reach a point where they can override instinct and truly consider and understand their actions and surroundings. Rats are alive and feel pain but so do most things considered alive, plants have a response to stimuli that is comparable to when animals with a nervous system and brain experience painful stimuli. Harvesting our food can similarly cause pain experienced by some lab rats. Rats are invasive species that spoil food and spread diseases without pest control methods like chemicals and traps our way of life could be considerably damaged their existence is crucial to a cycle of life but lack benefit and therefore are a prime candidate compared to other more benificial animals. And in the end many aren't that inconvenienced many cosmetics are considered safe and do no hard and the rats and in the end the rats are rewarded with food possibly keeping some rats that would be unable to thrive in nature alive.
I am not suggesting the notion that humans stop using cosmetics as a whole. I am arguing that using animals to test cosmetic products is unnecessary. The importance of cosmetics to ones self-esteem on the surface has little relevance to the notion of animal testing, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why this is related to animal testing for cosmetics and define your terms.
I will not debate whether the animals are alive or not. Also, I fail to see the direct relevance this has to cosmetic testing on animals, please relate this back to the debate topic.
The argument as to why cosmetics was important was to show the necessity they were tested that included the argument of their benefits to self esteem. If a product is not worth making it's not worth testing I've seen some people downplay the importance of cosmetics for the sake of their argument.
The cogito statement wasn't to prove animals weren't alive i was saying that they aren't on the level of human thought and comprehension and therefore should testing on them isn't on the same level as testing on humans morally. Technically it would prove animals are alive since you are able to know you're alive, with the exception of solipsists.
Testing is not a direct measure of worth for a product. Cosmetics may be important to society, but the testing of those cosmetics on animals has no direct affect on the importance value of the product to the consumer. Most consumer do not care if a product was tested on animals or was not tested on animals. If cosmetics are as important to society as you say then the purchasing of the cosmetics by the consumer should not cease just because animals were not used in the testing process. If the presence of animals during the testing process is insignificant to the consumer, then why is it still necessary?
Descartes was attempting to define the difference between humans and other animals with his famous quote famous "I think therefore I am". His statement has no direct relation to whether testing on humans is less or more moral than testing on animals. Humans biologically are animals, the same as rats. If humans are animals then stating that "testing on them (animals) isn't on the same level as testing on humans" is implying that animals in the set of human are somehow more important than animals in other sets. Evidence of self awareness is not a good measure of the value of life, since everything is equally living, be that life a human animal or a rat animal.
The reasoning wasn't that testing makes cosmetics more important it's that the important of cosmetics means that it doesn't waste time when it tests their products. The same argument I made in the first round when i defended it's use to cure diseases. The tests are done for a good cause.
I'm going to ignore the part where you misread my comment and rephrase my last point. Yes humans are animals but animals like rats that are below the threshold to go against their instincts should not be considered with the same set of morals as humans.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.