Ethics of non-Killing ! ! !

Viewing 44 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #531
      2810712
      Participant

      OK killing may be bad, but what about the activities of cosmetic researchers for testing
      their cosmetics on monkeys and making their live extremely painful some times,
      Can we stop this??? Or stop using cosmetics- cosmetics are not basic-life-requirements so please……

      What do U think???

      hrushikesh

    • #20536
      Chris4
      Participant

      i dont think there are any cosmetics tested on animals in the UK anymore. ??
      Of course its wrong.
      Animal testing should only be done for research into diseases which kill a lot of people. cancer, aids etc.
      To stop it we can only buy products which say not tested on animals on them. I do that

      Try telling girls to stop using cosmetics . 😀 I would not like to see girls stop using them 😉

      PS there are hundreds of things which are not basic life requirements, but damage the environment/animals. Cars, electricity etc etc. In todays society they are necessary. For us to look good, get a decent job, girl friend/boyfriend etc we need cosmetics.

    • #20559
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Of course animal testing is wrong. Many environment nerds are out on the streets protesting against this every day. teh European Union says that no member countru can practise animal testing. All member countries need to give it up.(i’ve heard of this, but am not 100% sure so don’t kill me if this is not true)
      Reagrds,
      Andrew

    • #20567
      Poison
      Participant

      Don’t blame on girls/women. Think that the soap you use to wash your hands or face is also a cosmetic. Haven’t you ever used one? 😆
      The other point is that, we need to test some drugs or such kind of things. So should we use human instead of mice and kill people just for testing? If yes, what about ‘ethics’?

    • #20570
      mith
      Participant

      Well, it’s not like you can give consent forms for guinea pigs to sign.

    • #20585
      2810712
      Participant

      we need to test , but what chris says is right – we should test only for those who
      save many lives.
      But, still we are using many non-basically required things . We cann;t stop using all of
      of them. So, we should make a priority list, isn’t it.
      Its difficult to prepare global priority list, but its not immpossible.
      Cosmetic testing is many a times very painful but it kills less no organisms, than the organisms killed due to other such unrequired things- I think.
      so we need to decide what is really bad .

      hrushikesh

    • #20617
      MrMistery
      Participant

      If some people can make products that are not tested on animals then it means that everyone can do it. It is probably cheaper to test them on animals.
      Reagrds,
      Andrew


      @Poison
      : nobody was blaming it on girls.

    • #20622
      Poison
      Participant

      Chris4 thinks that only girls/women use cosmetics. Thats why I said that. And gave that example about soap.
      Anyway, I’m not feminist, Andrew. 😆

    • #20635
      Chris4
      Participant
      quote Poison:

      Chris4 thinks that only girls/women use cosmetics. Thats why I said that. And gave that example about soap.
      Anyway, I’m not feminist, Andrew. 😆

      I didnt really imply that. (or at least i didnt want to). I was just saying they use them the most. Which is fact. Of course men use cosmetics aswell. Anyway, thats not the discussion here 🙂

    • #20641
      Poison
      Participant

      OK Chris4 I think I got it wrong. Thanx for correcting. 🙂

    • #20643
      2810712
      Participant

      See, we are not reducing cosmetic use only because we don’t want to stop.
      So, we’re making others pain for our pleasure, its bad, isn’t it???

      hrushikesh

    • #20644
      Poison
      Participant

      We are making everything for OUR comfort. This may be another point of view.

    • #20675
      2810712
      Participant

      Many people using those things [cosmetics etc.] may be not aware of
      how is it tested. So, they fell the comfort using those. But when they would be made known of these things , most of them[ as girls are mostly sensitive ] will not be able to fell that comfort . So, awareness should be increased, what’s ur opinion? ? ?

      hrushikesh

    • #20677
      mith
      Participant

      I think PETA does a pretty good job of doing that i.e. throwing red paint at models who wear fur.

    • #20683
      Poison
      Participant
      quote 2810713:

      Many people using those things [cosmetics etc.] may be not aware of
      how is it tested. So, they fell the comfort using those. But when they would be made known of these things , most of them[ as girls are mostly sensitive ] will not be able to fell that comfort . So, awareness should be increased, what’s ur opinion? ? ?

      hrushikesh

      A different point of view. Awareness can be increased by some methods. But I don’t think this will reduce the usage of cosmetics.
      On the other hand, what about drug testing? If scientists do not test drugs on animals think of what could happen. A person would get the drug and maybe die. Then what should those scientists say “we are against animal testing thats why we KILLED that guy” ?
      Does this seem correct to you?
      Not only for drugs but also for cosmetics. If they were not tested many people could have allergies or futher problems.
      So should we harm people for animal’s good?

    • #20697
      2810712
      Participant

      PETA is that way good , awareness will reduce the usage to atleast some extent, I think.
      @ Poison
      why don’t U think that ? ? ?
      😕
      AND testing important and its essential. But, using nail polish or lipstick isn’t essential from that pt. of view. So, if we want to use those cosm.s we have to test, we are not against testing , we should be against using those cosm.s- I think.

      Poison wrote that-Not only for drugs but also for cosmetics. If they were not tested many people could have allergies or futher problems.

      Allergies ? ? ? Allergies are genetic and different for person to person [ probability of common allergies is very less , as per I kow ] how can you tell by testing on few
      animals if it will cause allergies or not ? ? ?

      hrushikesh

    • #20715
      Poison
      Participant

      Of course you cannot say something accurately, by testing. But at least you can say it might be safe.
      And why do people need to give up using cosmetics?

    • #20726
      2810712
      Participant

      My opinion is we should hurt others only if it is obligatory, but use of cosmetics is not obligatory , so i personally have pains when people don’t worry about others.
      Allergies, U confirm, drugs , i think, cannot be tested for safety from allergies .

      hrushikesh

    • #20734
      Poison
      Participant

      So, should people give up using cosmetics?

    • #20735
      mith
      Participant

      If we test and use cosmetics, PETA will burn our houses. If we don’t test and use, we risk getting crazy puffy reactions.

      Safest way is to not use.

    • #20736
      Poison
      Participant

      I’m not sure that I can give up… 😆

    • #20839
      2810712
      Participant

      I’ve a remedy- see in ancient times, people [like Kleopatra, if u’re aware] used many cosmetics without testing, it was probably not harmful, using, traditional natural cosmetics is effective and time tested, so it won’t require testing in labs , you can thus use them, for me , in my country ancient life science- ayurveda , has given me many way to improve my looks, i’ve mentioned one of them in post of pimples, it works, and is even , in my experience , more effective and side-effectless than modern tested cosmetics.

      hrushikesh

    • #20855
      Poison
      Participant

      Yes thats right, we can use them. But how can we get them?

    • #20859
      mith
      Participant

      The problem is “all natural” doesn’t necessarily mean safe. I’ll give you root beer as an example. The original ingredients called for sassafras roots which were later found to be cancer-causing…. It’s natural but dangerous.

    • #20865
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Marijuana is natural 😀

    • #20879
      Poison
      Participant

      haha I liked that example MrMistery. 😀

    • #20882
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote MrMistery:

      Marijuana is natural 😀

      It’s from the earth man! *makes peace-sign*

      I’m not sure the root beer arugment would be accurate. There’s a difference between “all natural” and coming from “natural products.”

      Root beer’s original recipie, as well as the current one requires for refinement and combination of many ingredients.

      Oil is all natural. Gasoline is a derivative of natural products.

    • #20893
      James
      Participant

      There are no standards for what `natural’ means, merely adding one natural product can lead to the company advertising it as ‘natural’. Theres loads of known, potentially dangerous chemicals littered in these products.

    • #20896
      2810712
      Participant

      Yes, such natural thins are to be avoided, but we are biologists, we can know the test the truth of naturalness, that should be TESTED. So, atlast testing is essential, but the natural cosmetics in INDIA don’t have any mention of naturalness inorder to advertise, but those which are not that natural have the mention of it. 😆

      hrushikesh

    • #20906
      MrMistery
      Participant

      I agree… testing of certain things is vital(i don’t mean cosmetics here). A lot of natural poisons come from nature

    • #20983
      Jesskat14
      Participant

      There are places that don’t use products tested on animals. Lush and the Body Shop both don’t use products tested on animals and Body Shop is funding ways of testing without animals involved at all.
      There are other developments such as computer programs that can simulate how the product will affect humans, but these are expensive and the simulations aren’t always accurate.

    • #20996
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Since it’s people who make them, they should be people-tested 😀
      Just joking…

    • #21313
      Bleh
      Participant

      i know this sounds stupid, but you have to listen to under stand the problem with the stoping of cosmetic related testing.
      With our current law system it is EXTREAMLY easy to sue anyone, which is the problem, so to save companys from going bankrupt they have to animal test, so if you want to get rid of this problem you need to exchange the law subjecting the matter accordingly.

    • #21322
      biostudent84
      Participant

      We’re arguing ethics, not law, Bleh.

    • #21331
      Bleh
      Participant

      no what you dont seem to get is for you to set the ethics right (i.e no more testing cosmetics on animals,) you have to change the law, its not just a matter of saying its wrong…
      Sorry for any confussion, 😀

    • #21333
      ERS
      Participant

      at some level ethics are laws, moral laws that guide your gut for living

    • #21407
      2810712
      Participant

      yeah Bleh this is very important point, and as ERS says ethics are moral laws and our governments shoukld also aquire them .

      hrushikesh

    • #21416
      biostudent84
      Participant

      Should. But not necessarily so.

      Remember? Hitler passed laws that made the Holocaust legal.

    • #21501
      2810712
      Participant

      Yeah, what should happen and what does happen may differ greately.
      See, in biology forum we should not discuss ethics , but we do discuss that 😯 .
      Ok , discusing ethics is good [ i think so ] , not bad , but still it is different than what is expected from pure science forums.

      ____________________________________
      I’m the driver of my cycle
      I’m the writer of my bible
      I turn the handle of my scooter
      But what i can’t control is my own computer ! ! !

      hrushikesh

    • #21525
      Poison
      Participant

      I think we should discuss ethics. all biologists do that. I mean, if you are doing an experiment, first of all you must think of ethics. and thats why we are not doing experiments on human, but we do experiments on rats.

      PS: 2810712, I liked your signature… 😀

    • #21529
      mith
      Participant

      They are too intertwined,
      my analogy is how studying history always includes some religious texts even though technically you shouldn’t mix them up.

    • #21554
      2810712
      Participant

      Yeah , its right ,practical-science includes ethics [but theoritical science doesn’t]. And as this forum is not limited to theoritical science , and ethics is also required practically we should discuss that.

      PS: Thanks Poison, its my own poem.

      ____________________________________
      I’m the driver of my cycle
      I’m the writer of my bible
      I turn the handle of my scooter
      But what i can’t control is my own computer ! ! !

      hrushikesh

    • #21685
      Charlene
      Participant

      When you tell girls to not use cosmetics… Why don’t you ask yourself… Why do girls use cosmetics? Girls use cosmetics to attract guys. If all the guys do not enjoy watching girls “with” cosmetics… girls wouldn’t be using cosmetics~~~ 💡

    • #21719
      Poison
      Participant

      girls use cosmetics not to just attract guys but to feel good. 🙂

    • #21822
      abstemious_entity
      Participant

      in biology, the purpose in life is to eat, grow and reproduce. you have to be attractive to find a mate (“only the attractive survive”) 😆 that’s one of the main reason of cosmetics. and they need to be tested. if we can’t test them on animals, then what should we test them on? which is more important a thinking being or lower organisms? animal testing, IMO, is a ‘better’ substitute compared to human testing…unless if cloning technology can catch up with our needs of the present. But wouldn’t it be better if we were not made to think that cosmetics are necessary for you to be attractive? if media were only more responsible in their broadcasting?

Viewing 44 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.