Wrongfully Harmed

Wrongfully Harmed

Will the harm against animals ever stop? Will we continue to live like nothing is happening? These are questions that I ask myself every single day. There is a quote that I found very interesting it says, "Animals don't have anyone to protect them. If we don't stand up, the people who are harming animals will never get stopped –Paul Rodriguez-" (Brainy Quote, 2010). In my opinion, this statement is true. I believe that animals are very important to the environment. Without them how would the environment survive? In this particular paper, I plan to discuss the Draize eye test that has been used by companies to test their products on rabbits.

The Draize eye test is a test that is used by cosmetic companies that test eye irritancy of their products on animals. "Liquid, flake, granule, and powdered substances are placed into the eyes of rabbits, and then the eyes' progression deterioration is recorded. The Draize test is responsible for the suffering deaths of thousands of rabbits each year in the United States but does not cure or help prevent human injury" (Geari, 2010).

While performing this test "the animals are observed for up to 14 days, for signs of erythematic and edema in the skin test, one redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration, hemorrhaging, cloudiness, or blindness in the tested eye" (Draize Test, 2010). These animals are subject to having living imperfections that can lead to their deaths. Many people believe that testing products on animals are wrong; others believe that it is right in a sense. This brings me to talk about what is ethical and what is not ethical.

From my own perspective of this situation, I think that Kant's theory describes my point-of-view of the subject matter at hand. Kant's theory "held that only when we act from duty does our action have moral worth" (Business Ethics, 2008, pp.57). "Kant famously holds that we have no direct duties to animals but we have indirect duties with regard to them. One of his key points to this argument is that we ought not treat animals cruelly, as it damages our natural sympathies and thus harden us in our dealings with other human beings" (Fieldhouse, 2004).

I agree with Kant's theory, because if we treat animals violently then what about other human beings. That goes back to treating people like you would want to be treated. You would not want humans to harm another human-being, why would humans want to hurt animals. I believe that Kant's theory expresses the way we look at things whether true or false. A "good will" action would be to save the animals from any harm done to them.

On the other hand, "Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions.