Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The Invisible Hand

     The invisible hand states "that individuals seeking their economic self-interest actually benefit society more than they would if they tried to benefit society directly."

     The individuals in the movie we watched in this class today, who were torturing and taking advantage of animals, in their own self-interest were, in my opinion, not benefitting society but instead hurting it. However, ignoring the fact that these were atrocities, they did technically benefit us by improving the GDP and creating new goods for the market. 

     What cost should there be for the benefit of advancement, not only in the fur or cosmetic department but more importantly the medicinal department who will be able to help more humans, or slightly less with improving our economy with both jobs & salaries? Against animals? Humans?

1 comment:

  1. I think you have a valid point, but "ignoring the fact that these were atrocities" is a bit sweeping the issue under the rug. I think animal testing is necessary in some sense because human testing is a more controversial topic because of the way society has developed. Vaccines are one example of why sometimes animal testing is a necessity. I believe there are moral ways for animal testing to be conducted. Although the documentary showed us the ugly side, we would not have had the vast amount of medical advances as we do today if we had to go through the bureaucracy of human testing.