You’re just making this up. I doubt there was ever a time in human history when the majority of people thought murder, pedophila, or racism were moral.

As far as slavery goes, the majority of people thought this was wrong too (if you count the slaves that were against it). The law was changed because a majority of people agreed it should be. And what is your proof that “most scientists” thought slavery was ok? It sounds like you are just making that up.

And when a majority of the population start to see animal testing for cosmetics as morally reprehensible (which may or may not happen) laws will get changed.

That’s a no brainer

Here is the complete article BB should have included from .cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Products-Markets/Consumers-misled-over-animal-testing-says-UK-charity
Consumers would boycott beauty products if they were aware that their ingredients had been tested on animals, according to a UK-based animal welfare group Uncaged.
The group carried out a survey, asking over 2000 adults in the UK their opinions on animal testing in beauty products.
Consumers won’t buy products tested on animals
Over two thirds of British women would stop buying a particular beauty product or range if they knew it had been tested on animals, the survey suggested.
In addition, the women also believed that cosmetics products and toiletries tested on animals should be banned, according to the group.
Currently under European law the testing of finished products on animals is banned but animal testing may be used for some ingredients until 2013.
However, the UK charity argues that consumers are unaware that in some cases ingredients are still tested on animals.
Consumers misled by the industry
“Consumers are being misled by the beauty companies, who claim they don’t test their products – but they still test the ingredients, or use a third party to do the testing for them,” said Uncaged campaigns director Dr Dan Lyons.

According to Lyons, the charity wants to shed light on the dealings of the beauty industry so consumers can make an informed choice.
In addition, he highlights the increasing power of the consumer and claims beauty companies are sitting on a ticking time bomb of consumer boycotts and falling sales.
“Ethical shopping rose by 9 per cent last year as consumers realised how much power they have to change the way companies behave. If the British public knew about the animal testing of these products, sales would drop overnight,” he said.
The charity has been active in the past against the beauty industry mobilising boycotts and demonstrations in the UK and internationally.
Earlier this year the group was behind the twelfth boycott P&G day claiming that the US-based personal care is engaged in unnecessary animal testing.
According to the group there were over 100 actions in more than 30 different countries involved in this year’s event.

Some more facts:

HERBAL ESSENCES’ FALSE ALIBI REVEALED
Firstly, thank you to everyone who has shown their opposition to Herbal Essences’ cruel animal testing. Since the New Year we’ve been doing some research and planning to help the boycott campaign continue to grow throughout 2009. The success of the campaign so far bodes well.
One of the most revealing aspects of Herbal Essences’ behaviour is their lack of openness and honesty about their animal testing. They know that most people are disgusted by gratuitous cruelty to animals. But instead of changing their ways, Herbal Essences try to mislead consumers. We’ve now uncovered a glaring example of their deceit.
We launched the campaign last July when we revealed that Herbal Essences have poisoned and killed over a thousand mothers and their baby animals to re-test a chemical already in use by humans for decades (butylparaben). With a damaged reputation and collapsing sales, Herbal Essences tried to play the blame game and claimed that they did the test at the request of European regulators.
However, Uncaged can now reveal that this is just more deceptive spin from Herbal Essences’ increasingly desperate PR department. We lodged a freedom of information request with the European Commission (EC) for any evidence of a request to Herbal Essences or any other cosmetics company for more test data on butylparaben. The earliest document disclosed was from 2005. But the animal test was written up and published in 2004!
We also asked P&G, Herbal Essences’ parent company, for any documents to substantiate their excuses. They refused. Instead, their PR spokeswoman repeated the claim that the test was conducted at the request of the EC’s ‘Scientific Committee on Consumer Products’. But this Committee didn’t even come into existence until autumn 2004, several months after the animal test took place.
This incident is just typical of how, in reality, Herbal Essences treat both animals and the public with utter contempt. It seems both arrogant and short-sighted for Herbal Essences to feed the public bare-faced lies about such an important issue as animal testing. It’s about time Herbal Essences showed some respect and stopped insulting people’s intelligence. Though you have to wonder whether a company so deeply committed to gratuitous cruelty is capable of behaving responsibly and honestly.
That’s why it’s so important that the law forces these companies to be transparent about their animal testing practices. Please click here to lobby your MP to sign Early Day Motion 137 which calls on the Government to publish details of the animal testing behind cosmetics products.
Uncaged Campaigns 09.02.09

BB states:
Laws against murder, pedophila, racism, etc. are reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people see those things as immoral. It is not so clear cut with a subject like animal testing.

These laws are now in effect because a minority of people thought these issues were wrong. The abolitionists and suffragists were reviled in their day because “the majority of people” did not see these issues as immoral, including most scientists.

“Yes, good moral people can disagree on most issues, though surely there are some issues where disagreement is beyond the pale and not reasonable (i.e. pedophiles, racists and other bigots). I would classify animal testing for cosmetics as one of those issues.”

While you would classify animal testing for cosmetics this way, other good, moral people don’t. This may not fit in with your moral code, but morality is relative and each person has to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Laws against murder, pedophila, racism, etc. are reflective of the fact that the vast majority of people see those things as immoral. It is not so clear cut with a subject like animal testing.

There are plenty of people who think eating animals is immoral, but they are the minority of our population. It’s doubtful there will be laws against that anytime soon.

You have an amazing ability to create straw man arguments. Your categorization of our stance on animal testing is completely false. I’m against animal testing because I think cosmetics are mostly a frivolous indulgence and not a thing that warrants killing animals. At the moment, the chemicals that have already been tested on animals provide enough options for cosmetic chemists to formulate.

The difference between us is that I can understand how people wouldn’t come to the same conclusion as me. For them, new ingredient development does warrant more animal testing to ensure products are safe. I don’t agree but I’m not going to project my morality on them. Better is to spend time and resources supporting the development of alternative test methods for current animal testing.

I also don’t understand how you think your comments were misinterpreted by MidBrain. The quote was taken directly from the article. That’s what you said isn’t it?