Ethical Views On The Subject Of Cosmetics Testing Philosophy Essay

Ethical Views On The Subject Of Cosmetics Testing Philosophy auditionIn order to guarantee the safety of enhancives which include harmful chemical substances, umpteen enterprises which produce cosmetics including harmful chemicals would do animal and (or) human tests, as Dutch Cosmetics would do for come outting the market access for its new(a)ly developed glow-in-the-dark bring in. As for Dutch Cosmetics, it lead confront an ethical puzzle whether animals sewer be injected spicy doses of intent chemicals which will make them painful and harmed, and whether unsuspecting throng in a develop country whoremonger be conducted chemical tests which may harm them. This essay will firstly argue and knead the puzzle from the standpoint of utilitarianism, following that it will do it from the viewpoint of Kantian ethics, and fin every(prenominal)y it will do it from the viewpoint of meritoriousness ethics.The viewpoint of UtilitarianismFrom the viewpoint of Utilitarianism, whi ch is an ethics pedestald on issuing (Ethical Theory, p. 38), the heavy(p)est good (happiness/pleasure) for greatest number is the criteria to justify wholeness moment (Ethical Theory, p. 38), animal and human examination is non the redress issue. According to Mill, pleasures not only include sales booth and physical whizs, but also higher, aesthetical and intellectual ones (Ethical Theory, p. 40). Obviously, Utilitarianism is applied for selecting one right act among a few acts, by subtracting pain from pleasure. The act whose total make is greatest is the right act. The greatest number includes all(a) precautioned who atomic number 18 affected by the proposed action. Maybe it includes every someone on the earth and animal (Ethical Theory, p. 40). For chemical tests would be conducted by Dutch Cosmetics to appropriate the market access for its newly developed glow-in-the-dark make-up, the following flock and animals would be affected Animals. Puppies and kittens tha t atomic number 18 so near and sentientwith us will be harmed by high dose of burning chemicals and will pain. Certainly, they can not get any pleasures from the experiment. Unsuspecting state in a create country. Unsuspecting muckle in a create country who will be conducted test probably will be harmed by burning chemicals. Consumers. They are capable of getting some pleasures from beautiful, stylish and stimulative glow-in-the-dark make-up. However, much(prenominal) thing may be harmful to their health imputable to the make-up includes burning chemicals, and they must pay money which can give them other pleasures for it. Besides, they may facial expression painful when they know the producing of the cosmetic they are consuming has done harm on animals and tribe, for many people would incur uncomfortable when they see animal painful or tied(p) think of their pain. Myself. As the vice-president of Dutch Cosmetics to make decision, I must hire all pleasures and pain of greatest number including myself. As a individual, I dislike paining puppies and kittens. Maybe I am indifferent of them, the probability of the power is greater, and conducting chemical tests on unsuspecting people in a maturation country perhaps irritates my feelings of justice. As a manager and decision maker, I should think about the pro hold in of the family, which means I have to concern the benefits and costs, the risk of the experiment, etc. Consequently, more profits will give me more income, and maybe advance, which perhaps will give me pleasure. Nonetheless, I maybe feel painful on account of public unsatisfaction if my decision irritates popular due to the harm on animals and people conducted chemical tests. Investors in Dutch Cosmetics. If the glow-in-the-dark make-up is popular, they will make profits certainly, which may make them happy. But as a psyche, an investor maybe feels painful because his investment harms animals and people. Labourers. On one hand, they confront painful animals and cheated people conducted chemical tests directly, which perhaps makes them painful. On the other hand, they get work and salary due to the experiment, which may make them happy. Clearly, it is possible for them to get other job which may make them happier. Co-workers. They would get more income if the new product is successful, which might make them happy. However, they perhaps feel painful because their testify company does harms on animals and people conducted tests.To judge if the proposed experiment is the right act, the net total calculated by abstracting pain from pleasure must be compared with that of undoing animal experiment and chemical tests on unsuspecting people. The substitute(a) that tests are conducted on people who give informed consent can be supposed. Often the data from animal experiment is not fit for people because they have different attributes. in the exploitation of new oddball of cosmetics, pleasures people get are less th an the pain animals suffered, thats why Harold Fenberg, the president of the American Accreditation for the Care of Laboratory Animal Committee stated that the examen of cosmetics is frivolous and should be abolished (Jamieson and Regan, 1982, p. 140). As to tests conducted on unsuspecting people in a developing country, if the fact of tests is known by these people, they will feel irritated and painful by such cheating act, albeit there is no justice to crack down on such action, which would lead to the company to lose the market in this country. If the alternative that test is conducted on people who give informed consent is adopted, there wont be such pain and disadvantage. So from the viewpoint of Utilitarianism, it is apparent that it is not the right thing to do for Dutch company to inject puppies an kittens with high dose of burning chemicals and conduct tests on unsuspecting people in a developing country.The viewpoint of Kantian ethicsAccording to Kantian viewpoint, huma n scrutiny is not digestted, but whether animal test is the right thing is unknown. Kantian ethics considers that keenity justifies act. Kantian ethics is principal-based ethics which considers not consequence but intent (Ethical theory, p. 42). It permits no contradictions, so it is consequence-based for logic (Ethical theory, p. 43). One heavy element of Kantian ethics is respect for persons, which is expressed by Kant through and through his practical imperative Act in such a charge that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and neer simply as a means (Ethical theory, p. 43). Since Kant understands persons to be essentially noetic beings with free will, respect for persons means respect for their autonomy (Ethical theory, p. 43). According to Kantian ethics, respect for persons autonomy is a moral principle which cant be violated. Therefore, for Dutch Cosmetics, conducting tests on unsuspecting people is not permitted. As respectfulness to injecting high doses of burning chemicals into puppies and kittens, animal testing does not belong to one of Kantian ethics principles, so it is not known whether it is right.The viewpoint of justice ethicsFrom the viewpoint of fairness ethics conducting tests on unsuspecting people in developing country is not right, injecting high doses of burning chemicals is not the right act too. Virtue ethics asks whats the right kind of person to be? instead of asking whats the right thing to do? (Ethical theory, p. 44), and the settle is a virtuous person (Ethical theory, p. 44). Aristotle, an ancient Greek virtue ethicist listed standard four of the ancient Greeks-justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom-and adds a few others such as veracity, modesty, etc. William David Ross, a twentieth-century thinker, listed virtues such as fidelity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc. (Ethical theory, p. 44). So agree to Virtue ethics, justice, vera city, and beneficence are important virtues which do not permit treating people unequally, cheatingly and maleficently, which means it is not right conducting tests on unsuspecting people.Aristotle considered that all virtues are at the midpoint between two extremes, his list of virtues are justified by their qualities that enable us to experience eudamonia, which is achieved by developing our unique human function, that of rationality (Ethical theory, p. 44). So agreeing to Aristotle, rationality is the base of his ethics, as well as Kantian ethics, the difference is that the principles in Kantian ethics permit no exception, while virtues in Aristotle ethics are elastic. In view of above, injecting burning chemicals will be right if it is rational and not excessive, but it is not rational if it has little advantages to people and makes great pain to puppies and kittens. Obviously it is not the right thing to inject high doses of burning chemicals into puppies and kittens for a new type of glow-in -the -dark make-up according to Virtue ethics.ConclusionIn conclusion, from the viewpoints of all aforementioned ethics, tests conducted on unsuspecting people are immoral, even if the reasons are different. Injecting puppies and kittens with high doses of burning chemicals does not accord with the principle of Utilitarianism that the greatest good for the greatest number justifies an act, and does not add up with Virtue ethics which emphasizes the rationality of act. The three ethics in centerfield all considers the rationality of act as most important, the difference among them is that Kantian ethics considers rationality of act from universality, Utilitarianism considers rationality of act from consequence, which counts into specific circumstances, and Virtue ethics considers rationality of act from human being, so in legislative regard Kantian ethics plays an important role because of its universality, for example, human testing is not allowed without particip ating partys informed consent in many countries law and international treaties such as Nuremberg Code. Utilitarianism can be a reclaimable analytical method in many specific circumstances. Virtue ethics trains people more happy. The analysis from the three ethics viewpoint illustrates that the right course Dutch Cosmetics should adopt is conducting tests on people who give informed consent, instead of animal experiment and tests on unsuspecting people in a developing country.