An argument against animal testing of consumer products and drugs

How do we want genetic testing to be regulated? By Michael Eisen Published:

An argument against animal testing of consumer products and drugs

What are the pros and cons of animal testing? In order to understand why, you should have a look through this post I made. This is covered in depth in the link I provided above. Nonhuman animals have the right to not be tested on. There are no exceptions to this; they simply have that right.

What happens is, we engage in the immoral action of testing on them anyway, even though we do not have the right to do this - we basically believe that because we have the ABILITY to torture them, that we have the right to torture them.

This is not logically or morally sound at all - it violates Nonhuman Animals Rights in exactly the same way that testing on human babies violates Human Rights.

An argument against animal testing of consumer products and drugs

To fully understand this, you first must understand that human animals are not morally superior to nonhuman animals. Here is something I wrote recently on this subject: This idea can be easily disproved, and yet most people do not even question it. All other forms of moral supremacy, from ethnic, to religious, to gender-based, etc.

The belief that humans are morally superior to nonhumans is not based on instinct. If it was, then we would not be questioning it, and therefore you would not even be reading this.

The myth of human moral supremacy is almost never even examined. The idea that humans are superior to nonhuman animals is based on the misconception that all humans have some characteristic or set of characteristics that all nonhumans lack.

Latest Business Headlines

These characteristics are commonly proposed to include: Intelligence, including abstract thought or the capability of understanding and following moral codes.

Creativity, including the ability to invent tools, technology, or art. Some sort of physical ability or physical adaptation, like an opposable thumb. Proliferation, or the idea that merely having more members of your species makes one special. A "soul" or some other form of divine endowment.

Although human animals created a concept of morality, many humans commonly break the moral codes imposed by society. This is why we have human slavery, rape, torture, murder, and all the other atrocities that civilized humans abhor.

Nonhuman animals, who cannot be proven to understand the concept of a human moral code, almost always follow our moral codes better than we do. They do not enslave us, create concentration camps, weapons of mass destruction, torture chambers, or pollute or otherwise destroy our habitats.

Ban Citricidal and Grapefruit Seed Extract

Nor do they wage war on humans, or any of the other atrocities that humans are guilty of. They merely wish to be left alone to live and die on their own terms. To claim that they should have to follow our moral codes to benefit from them would be like claiming that we should punish a severely mentally handicapped human for failing to pass the S.

On the other side of the coin, humans enslave, rape, torture and murder nonhumans by the hundreds of billions each year, merely because we enjoy the taste of their dead bodies and secretions and the conveniences that it affords us.

And we also are intentionally destroying every wild habitat that we can.

News for September

We regularly treat nonhumans worse than we would treat the worst human criminals. So who is morally superior to whom again? The idea that we should be able to do these things because say, a lion eats a zebra is ridiculous in the extreme.

A male lion often will kill a rival male and their offspring before copulating, in public no less, with the mother. If a mother lioness gives birth to a severely ill or deformed baby, she will usually cannibalize them. When applied to human contexts, do we think these are morally justifiable ways to behave?

If a human can understand the concept of the injustice of slavery, rape, torture or murder, but does not adhere to the code that such things are wrong, where is the moral superiority in that?


As I mentioned, we very rarely hold completely to our optimal code of conduct. We claim, as a society, to believe in the Golden Rule, but we routinely inflict massive unnecessary suffering and death on innocent beings merely for our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We enslave, rape, torture and murder upwards of a trillion nonhuman animals EACH YEAR merely so we can unnecessarily eat their flesh and secretions and use their body parts for clothing among other thingswhich not only causes massive suffering for them, but massive amounts of chronic disease for us and massive ecological devastation as well.

There is no way to morally justify the intentional, unnecessary exploitation of nonhumans by humans without also morally justifying the intentional, unnecessary exploitation of humans by other humans.

Watch it. Love it. Buy it!

This means that if we personally are against nonhumans having the right to be completely safe from being enslaved, raped, tortured, slaughtered or in any way used as replaceable resources, then we have no claim that we ourselves should be safe from having those same things done to us by other humans.

Any argument we try to use to justify harming nonhumans can also be used successfully by humans to justify harming us in those same ways.Ethical consumerism (alternatively called ethical consumption, ethical purchasing, moral purchasing, ethical sourcing, ethical shopping or green consumerism) is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of dollar voting.

It is practiced through 'positive buying' in that ethical products are favoured, or 'moral boycott', that is negative purchasing and company-based purchasing. Dangerous animal testing Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around , heart attacks and strokes and , deaths worldwide.

NOTE: This was originally supposed to be a guest post for Kris Gunnars' Authority Nutrition website, but in true Denise Minger fashion, the word count got out of control and we decided to dock it here instead.

Voila! Just pretend you're reading this on a blog far, far away, and that, for once in my life,. Society has allowed animal experimentation because people have been convinced that it was a “necessary evil,” and that it was the only way to find cures for human diseases and to make drugs, cosmetics and other products safe.

Animal Cruelty on Farms - It is so easy to become complacent in our sheltered world and to turn the other cheek to the violence and misery that our every life decision can perpetrate, and that the majority of the country (mostly unknowingly) buys into.

Well, me, at one time. When the truth is laid bare in front of you, all you can do is turn a blind eye and try to forget about it before your next meal; and of course hate the vegan who keeps shoving this truth in .

Debate: Animal testing - Debatepedia, Debate on animal experimentation and testing