Animal Testing shave products

[jed1154]

Ill be completely honest with you, i did a QUICK google search of Singer and came up with a brief wikipedia page. This is the last thing on the first paragraph.

Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. He is a founding member of the Great Ape Project, which seeks to persuade the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes awarding personhood to non-human great apes.

After reading this, my immediate thought was "you have GOT to be kidding me". This immediately turns me away from wanting to read anything he has to say as his 'credibility' has been effectively reduced to 0. Upon further reading (again, through websites) it appears as though his work regarding animal ethics poses implied analogies such as animals vs. humans = whites vs. blacks, and testing on an infant = testing on an animal. Ill leave it to you to tell me this is NOT what he means. If so, then Singer can immediately be dismissed IMHO.

Regarding what you said here:

animals have very little to no moral standing compared with humans

I am completely ignorant on this, could you please explain what exactly this is supposed to mean? Singer (and you) may very well have a point, but i do not fully understand the reasoning yet.

 

[jbasl]

I guess I don't understand why his credibility would go down because people a) have found him influential and b) he believes that certain rights ought to be extended to non-human animals. I would think that his being a prominent Princeton philosopher (well respected by his peers especially for his attention to empirical details when making arguments) would lend him some credibility. While pointing out his pedigree should no means convince you to agree with him, it should point out that he is someone whom a profession that prides itself on careful analytic thought considers to be worth engaging with.

The argument you want to make seems to be a reductio ad absurdum where you see a conclusion that is so absurd that one of the premises must be false (we don't have to get into the technical details of this argument form but I usually this type of argument requires you to draw a contradiction from his premises and I don't think this is so easily done. If you want to discuss that bit more fully maybe we should do so by pm).

As far as your other questions, to claim that non-human animals have moral standing is just to claim that they ought to be taken into account in our moral deliberations (deliberations about what we ought to do). Since you seem to oppose Singer only on the grounds that he holds the position that animals have rather high moral standing, I assumed you took it to be true that the interests of animals (while maybe they are considered slightly) are easily overridden by human interests. This is exactly what Singer argues is false.

Cheers,

John

ps: If anyone is interested I have a handout that I wrote which outlines Singer's main argument and responds to common objections. I wrote it for a freshmen intro to philosophy class and so it might assume a little background but I don't think too much. I'd be happy to email it by request.

 

[mr_economy]

Animal Liberation is a fantastic read, and to dismiss its arguments, or Singer, from something you found on Wikipedia is to do yourself a disservice. It is a beautiful application of Bentham's theory of utility, and was the primary reason I became interested in animal rights in the first place.

 

[OldSaw]

Or your aunt dying over the course of a week from an unforseen and unknown allergic reaction?

In the US, these animals are not tied down. They are bred for this purpose and they are tested in a humane manner. If they exhibit signs of distress, they are euthanized and a necropsy is performed as there is no need to further the study, that product will not pass and they will receive specifics of what happened so that they can correct it and retest.

They don't tie them down and see how bad it gets, if it exhibits a reaction of that caliber, its euthanized. Countries outside of the US may be different.

How does all this animal testing mis-information get out?

You make good points about misinformation. Even though I started this rather "tongue in cheek" it is interesting to see how wildly passionate some people can be about some things. I have gone round the block with a few extremists in the past and I don't try to change their way of thinking but simply try to defuse the exaggerations they peddle as the truth.

One of the ploys they often use is the challenge of reading some tome that spews misinformation and accuse you of being closed minded for not reading ALL of it after finding a few glaring problems. I prefer to follow the logic of the Canadian counterfeit currency experts, they only study the real currency so as to spot a fake by virtue of the fact that it is not real. Just as no one could possibly study every counterfeit, no one could possibly study every charlatan.

I am not an animal hater. I simply disagree with the extreme position of giving animals elevated status.

For the animal lovers one has to ask themselves, how free is your goldfish, parakeet, dog, cat, etc. No matter how well you care for them, they are still not free. Since animals are capable of taking care of themselves, pets are luxuries who often get treated better than most of the destitute people in the world. I'm not trying to flip the argument, just trying to put things in perspective.

 

[Howard Newell]

Count me in for animal testing...believe it or not, it really DOES help promote science and medicine.

 

[xmemnochx]

You make good points about misinformation. Even though I started this rather "tongue in cheek" it is interesting to see how wildly passionate some people can be about some things. I have gone round the block with a few extremists in the past and I don't try to change their way of thinking but simply try to defuse the exaggerations they peddle as the truth.

One of the ploys they often use is the challenge of reading some tome that spews misinformation and accuse you of being closed minded for not reading ALL of it after finding a few glaring problems. I prefer to follow the logic of the Canadian counterfeit currency experts, they only study the real currency so as to spot a fake by virtue of the fact that it is not real. Just as no one could possibly study every counterfeit, no one could possibly study every charlatan.

I am not an animal hater. I simply disagree with the extreme position of giving animals elevated status.

For the animal lovers one has to ask themselves, how free is your goldfish, parakeet, dog, cat, etc. No matter how well you care for them, they are still not free. Since animals are capable of taking care of themselves, pets are luxuries who often get treated better than most of the destitute people in the world. I'm not trying to flip the argument, just trying to put things in perspective.

There of course always is perspective, you make some good points.

However there is a big leap from keeping pets in captivity and caring for them compassionately, to keeping something in a tiny, tiny cage and doing horrific things to them. But who really knows in the end right? If the animal never knew or will know anything but torture, couldn’t it be perceeved as normal to that creature? Perhaps we could do these experiments on humans and find out? Oh wait we have, to bad Hitler didn’t get his master race! *shucks*

I don’t doubt that one day it will come to fruition with the great resource that is human ingenuity. *shudder*

I am not an animal rights activist by any stretch of the imagination, but I just don’t find such things morally sound, but if those people can live with themselves for the sake of aiding mankind, more power to them. Each of us is as guilty as the next for condoning such ghastly behavior, mankind and existence is more or less about creation and destruction. We all make very personal decisions in our lives and have to live with the repercussions and rewards.

They do however study people that enjoyed torturing animals as small children, they usually end up the Dahmer type. For the record I am not making the connection between adolescent animal torture and homicidal maniacs, but there is always a progression to things… Testing on animals is fine, why not just capture some hobo’s off the street and see what happens with them, Tuskegee Study anyone?

I do enjoy B&B I really am glad that we can have great convo and be civil about it, rare these days, people get over emotional. I really enjoy trying to see from other eyes. We are all each so right, and each so very wrong, there really isnt right or wrong, but there are those that can debate their tails off! Or have their tail fall off due to the latest trend in wet shaving!

 

[OldSaw]

They do however study people that enjoyed torturing animals as small children, they usually end up the Dahmer type. For the record I am not making the connection between adolescent animal torture and homicidal maniacs, but there is always a progression to things… Testing on animals is fine, why not just capture some hobo’s off the street and see what happens with them, Tuskegee Study anyone?

I agree that torture is bad and children/teens should NEVER be ignored when caught torturing animals, or picking on other kids for that matter. People who practice these things can suppress the natural part of them that tells them that this is wrong. The more they do it the more they can suppress it and become extremely cruel regardless of wether they ever develop into a Dahmer type.

I also agree that it is good to be open minded to what others think, even if they disagree. One thing that really bugs me is when people, (typically liberal minded ones), automatically accuse others of being "closed minded", simply because they disagree. Seems to me they are the ones being closed minded. Open minded simply means you are open to both sides of a case, even if you agree with one over the other.

 

[xmemnochx]

I agree that torture is bad and children/teens should NEVER be ignored when caught torturing animals, or picking on other kids for that matter. People who practice these things can suppress the natural part of them that tells them that this is wrong. The more they do it the more they can suppress it and become extremely cruel regardless of wether they ever develop into a Dahmer type.

I also agree that it is good to be open minded to what others think, even if they disagree. One thing that really bugs me is when people, (typically liberal minded ones), automatically accuse others of being "closed minded", simply because they disagree. Seems to me they are the ones being closed minded. Open minded simply means you are open to both sides of a case, even if you agree with one over the other.

Well said, well said!

 

[Magnulus]

There are synthetic bristle shaving brushes, actually... and apparrently they work well for the most part. So it's actually entirely possible to do traditional shaving, and not use any animal products. I believe these shaving brushes do better in the Northern Europe than the US, though... at least they are harder to find here.

And as for animal testing... well, I don't believe it is necessary for most cosmetic or toiletries, where the ingredients are "Generally Regarded As Safe". If people have reactions to these products they are often allergic and idiosyncratic, and no amount of animal testing is going to prevent that.

 

[ScottS]

They do however study people that enjoyed torturing animals as small children, they usually end up the Dahmer type. For the record I am not making the connection between adolescent animal torture and homicidal maniacs...

For the record, you just did

 

[jed1154]

how wildly passionate some people can be about some things.

I don't mean to.

I havent finished reading your posts yet...im going to, because im actually quite interested since you presented it in a respectful manner.

The argument you want to make seems to be a reductio ad absurdum where you see a conclusion that is so absurd that one of the premises must be false

You are correct, i know i ought to not do that, which is why ill shoot you an email about that paper. Im interested in seeing his points, but not interested enough to go through research and an entire book. Your paper may be exactly the ticket.

 

[Prospero]

Hi,

I learned that for instance Gillette company is testing it's rasor blades in a horrible way on rabbits or other animals.

Now, I'm not interested in a discussion about testing methods themselves. or the unlucky rabbit depicted. With the knowledge we have today, the testing on animals is often unnecessary. So, I'm wondering if you guys can help me with information about what companies have a positive animal testing policy so that I can buy my soap and blades in the most kosjer way as possible?

Obviously, Gillette blades are not the cool blades to shave with if you don't want to support their testing methods.

 

[Prospero]

With the help of the do & don't use animal testing methods pdf pages from http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp I abstracted a few companies which don't use animal testing in the production of their products.

They are:

1. American Safety Razor (Personna, Flicker, Bump Fighter), 240 Cedar Knolls Rd., Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927; 973-753-3000; www.asrco.com
2. King of Shaves; Fish Hair Styling, 304 Park Ave. S., 11th Fl., New York, NY 10001; 212-590-2471; www.shave.com
3. Maine Shave, 60 Capital Ave., Lisbon Falls, ME 04252; 207-353-5080; www.maineshave.com
4. De Vergulde Hand soaps; http://www.verguldehand.nl/
5. Weleda products; http://www.weleda.nl/

And I found this article stated below on the Google web from the author pinkfreud:
The most prominent manufacturer of cruelty-free razors and blades is American Safety Razor, the maker of Personna products. I have used the Personna Tri-Flexxx, and it is the best triple-blade product I've tried. Beats the heck out of Gillette and Schick, in my opinion. "Personna Tri-Flexxx Razor Triple blade shaving system. A technologically advanced system designed to give you an exceptionally close, comfortable shave. Razor has a vitamin E and aloe lubricating strip to reduce drag and irritation. Comes with 2 razor refills. Made by American Safety Razor, a cruelty-free manufacturer."

Obviously these tips don't refer to DE blade systems. So how about for instance the Derby blades from the Turkish Azmusebat company which are advised on Badger & Blade; http://www.derby.com.tr/ Does anyone no anything about there animal testing program?

 

[Aevum]

anyways, most brushes are tested on badgers first, no ?

 

[bjrn]

For soaps and creams there's obviously also the Body Shop as well as (presumably) the smaller manufacturers (Mama Bear, QED, SCS, TGQ, Susies Bubbles, and so on).

I mean... I can't imagine any of those keeping pets just to try soap on (especially when I'm sure there are more than enough gents around here who would gladly be guinea pigs for new soaps and/or creams).

 

[Prospero]

I've been so bold to drop a question about animal testing and the Derby blades at the Azmusebat factory in Tuzla (Istanbul). This is the reply of the factory which I received within the hour:

Please note that we never test our razor blades on animals in production process. We have all international quality certification and we produce razor blades according to EU production standarts.

So according to the export manager of the company the Derby blades should be a good choice if you want animal test free blades. As the manager also invited me to visit the factory to see for myself, and I've planned a lovely vacation trip to Istanbul coming on May 2008, I think I will go and have a look. I think it will be great to see a blade factory at work!!!

More info on: http://www.derby.com.tr/derby/eng/catalogue.htm

 

[Prospero]

For soaps and creams there's obviously also the Body Shop as well as (presumably) the smaller manufacturers (Mama Bear, QED, SCS, TGQ, Susies Bubbles, and so on).

I mean... I can't imagine any of those keeping pets just to try soap on (especially when I'm sure there are more than enough gents around here who would gladly be guinea pigs for new soaps and/or creams).

I do have a few Norwegion Forest cats up here (long haired) so a good shave would be appropriate


About the Body Shop: I read quite a critical article on the web (http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/bodyshop.html) stating that the Body Shop is not telling the whole story if it comes to their animal welfare program.

 

[Mr. Igg]

I guess I don't understand why his credibility would go down because people a) have found him influential and b) he believes that certain rights ought to be extended to non-human animals. I would think that his being a prominent Princeton philosopher (well respected by his peers especially for his attention to empirical details when making arguments) would lend him some credibility. While pointing out his pedigree should no means convince you to agree with him, it should point out that he is someone whom a profession that prides itself on careful analytic thought considers to be worth engaging with.

Your disclaimer is very helpful and well-taken. He's earned the right to a seat at the table for debate. I think at least some of the concerns with Singer come from at least some of the conclusions he reaches.

As far as your other questions, to claim that non-human animals have moral standing is just to claim that they ought to be taken into account in our moral deliberations (deliberations about what we ought to do). Since you seem to oppose Singer only on the grounds that he holds the position that animals have rather high moral standing, I assumed you took it to be true that the interests of animals (while maybe they are considered slightly) are easily overridden by human interests. This is exactly what Singer argues is false.

Having taught Singer, you're a bit better able than most to field this question: would you say he elevates animals above any group of humans in terms of moral standing?

 

[Aevum]

just a small details, many of those "we do not test on animals" labeled products are actually based on testing data from other companies which do test on animals,

body shop dosnt test on animals, but if the parent company, l´oreal does, and if the research data is allready there, the body shop itself did not test it on animals....

 

[castlecraver]

I've been so bold to drop a question about animal testing and the Derby blades at the Azmusebat factory in Tuzla (Istanbul). This is the reply of the factory which I received within the hour:

Please note that we never test our razor blades on animals in production process. We have all international quality certification and we produce razor blades according to EU production standarts.

So according to the export manager of the company the Derby blades should be a good choice if you want animal test free blades. As the manager also invited me to visit the factory to see for myself, and I've planned a lovely vacation trip to Istanbul coming on May 2008, I think I will go and have a look. I think it will be great to see a blade factory at work!!!

I'm getting a little off topic, but thanks so much for digging that info up. It might be useful to query other companies and perhaps make a list on the B&B Wiki in case others are especially interested in patronizing manufacturers who don't test on animals (this is neither an endorsement nor disparagement of such a preference).

PLEASE take photos (if they'll let you) at the Derby factory!! Enjoy your trip and send the Derby folks all the best from us.