The definition and summary of what is and should be allowed for when it comes to animals and their confinement and purpose is up for debate. There are people that feel that any treatment of animals is all well and good due to their lesser status as compared to humans. There are others that suggest that animals should have as many rights as humans and that they should be given equal status. Of course, the more reasonable answer is somewhere in between those two extremes given that non-human animals are clearly not on the same level as humans. At the same time, this does not give humans an ethical or moral license to do treat animals in an inhumane or tortuous way. While animals are commonly perceived to exist and live at the permission and purpose of humans, there can and should be limits to what is done and what is not done to them as and when they exist on this planet.
Analysis
The question to be answered for this brief answer centers on the ethics of using rabbits to test whether makeup and cosmetics are irritating to the eyes of the people that wear them. To test this, the rabbits are subjected to having the cosmetics injected directly into and around their eye area. This is known to be painful to the rabbits but the idea is to test the materials on rabbits or other animals rather than subjecting humans to the same thing, either on purpose or indirectly. To be specific, large doses of the materials are injected into the eyes of the rabbits. Whether this is acceptable and proper comes down to the question of whether non-human animals could or should be the proverbial “guinea pigs” when it comes to testing things like cosmetics. On one hand, it can be said that doing the tests on rabbits is ethical because the alternative would be to do the test on humans and that would not be acceptable. There are two major flaws with this argument.
First, the rabbits are clearly subjected to terrible pain and discomfort and to do this on purpose, regardless of the motive in most cases, is simply wrong. Beyond that, it is not as if the testing is for something like a life-saving or life-improving drug. Instead, the test is for something that is cosmetic and voluntary in nature and something that has nothing to do with sustaining and improving life. For both of those reasons, it is clear that the rabbits are being tortured for a reason that has nothing to do with ethical and life-saving behavior. Unless one pre-supposes that rabbits and other animals exist at the whim and for the needs of humans, this behavior cannot be justified. Even cows and chickens that are eventually butchered should be controlled and eventually euthanized in a way that limits their pain and discomfort. This is manifested in a number of ways including euthanizing them humanely as well as controlling them in a proper manner before their death and during their life such as not confining them too harshly or otherwise allowing them to live a comfortable life before they are slaughtered (OMAFRA, 2017). A specific example is cage-free hens that give eggs (Thompson, 2017). To put things concisely, if the testing on the rabbits was for something more important and life-creating or life-sustaining like immunization or a cure for a disease (e.g. Alzheimer’s), the testing could be more justifiable. Beyond that, rabbits are lagomorphs (not rodents) and testing would probably be more proper on animals like rats or mice given their “lower” status on the animal pecking order (NHC, 2017).
Conclusion
Perhaps there will come a day where testing on animals, whether it be rats, mice or rabbits, is simply not needed anymore. In the meantime, there are valid questions as to how to test products without risking unknown entities and substances on humans. Even so, intentionally torturing and harming rabbits or animals for something that is not life-sustaining or life-saving is very much a bridge too far and should be avoided whenever possible.
References
NHC. (2017). Natural History Collections: Introduction to Lagomorphs. nhc.ed.ac.uk. Retrieved 13 January 2017, from http://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=24.134.166.171.194
OMAFRA. (2017). On-farm Euthanasia of Cattle and Calves. Omafra.gov.on.ca. Retrieved 13 January 2017, from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/animalcare/facts/info_euthanasia_cc.htm
Thompson, P. (2016). Does 'cage-free' mean a better life for chickens?. CNN. Retrieved 13 January 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/cage-free-chicken-better-life/
