5 ms·
This is exactly what bothers me about makeup companies (and the like) that advertise themselves as never having experimented on animals. While they may not be
by venning 11y ago
This is exactly what bothers me about makeup companies (and the like) that advertise themselves as never having experimented on animals. While they may not be looking at MSDS sheets [1], they are looking at something that tells them which chemicals are safe. And, in doing so, they are relying on millenia of accumulated knowledge about toxic effects, paid for with a lot of human death and suffering and, possibly, someone else's animal experimentation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_data_sheet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_data_sheet
- icebraining 11y agoWhy does that bother you? The wording doesn't seem misleading (as long as they are just using historical data, not incentivizing current production) and avoiding that knowledge would in fact bring more, not less harm to animals (if we include humans). To me that sounds a very Augustinian view, in which we can never claim to be innocent of anything, because our life is shaped by past sins which we inherit. Personally, I reject that completely; we should acknowledge that actions by others in the past shape the present, but not feel ashamed of them.
- venning 11y agoThat's a good question, one that would take me a while to explain, so I'll keep it short. I did not mean to imply anything about innocence or lack of it. I guess I'm deeply bothered by proud statements of accomplishment that ignore profound and costly inheritance. PETA would never acknowledge that "cruelty-free" owes a debt to what they would term "cruelty". It's that lack of acknowledgement that bothers me.