Ethics of Fur

[cassini]

I am glad that you say you treated them humanely. We know how horrible it is in abbatoirs.

JUst a point, I love my animals too so I really do not understand how you loved your minks but were ok with killing them. I treat my pets well and I am sure they are better off than your minks were.

An important point is why manufacture or use a product which involves any suffering when such a product is not a necessity?

That is the nature of farming severus, be they cows, sheep and mink. Jesus used the analagy of the shepherd who tends the flock. They were all for the table - even sacrifice to God. One simply does not become emotionally attached to them for this very reason.

 

[severus68]

My Dad was a farmer for many years. He was really gentle to the animals, he didn’t hit them or keep them in dirty conditions, the cows actually liked to eat pears, so he’d let them have pears from one of the pear trees. He was good to the sheep.

That didn’t mean he could not slaughter them. He did it personally. That was what they were for, he didn’t own them because they were pets.

I believe Cassini said he loved his animals.

 

[cassini]

I am sorry that you have expeienced personal mistreatment in your life, but the bad behavior directed toward you does not make a case for the ethical question we are discussing/debating.

OK–this is more in line with the spirit of debate/presenting a case to support opinion.

1. green: says who? The Fur Council? There are greener alternatives. Cruelty is Not Green: crueltyisnotgreen.com/
2. beautiful: goes to desire/coveting what belongs to an animal.
3. need fur to keep warm in cold climates: does not apply to the fur raised on factory fur farms for luxury fashion, unless mink are being raised to clothe Arctic explorers.
4. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was: So why did he give it to the animals??? Why didn’t he give it directly to us??? Why don’t we have our own fur, right on our own backs? We are to practice responsible stewardship of the animals and the planet. We are allowed to use animals for food and clothing. We are not to ABUSE animals for food or clothing, and utilizing animals for unnecessary luxury clothing goes to desire/want/and vanity, not to an authentic NEED. We have utilized animals throughout history, and have survived harsh climates because of this. Civilization had progressed to the point where the services of animals are no longer needed for our survival. The good steward will “retire” the animals that he no longer needs. The “ox” has been “retired”. The “horse” and the “mule” have been “retired.” The “fur animal” is no longer NEEDED, we have many compassionate alternatives available to us TODAY, in MODERN SOCIETY.

Marfran. Will answer you later. I have to rush off to walk a dog in the rain that belongs to a crippled old lady. Can you imagine that. A cruel mink farmer actually giving a poor dog a break from his confinment. Next you will be calling me an animal lover.

 

[severus68]

I am sorry that you have expeienced personal mistreatment in your life, but the bad behavior directed toward you does not make a case for the ethical question we are discussing/debating.

OK–this is more in line with the spirit of debate/presenting a case to support opinion.

1. green: says who? The Fur Council? There are greener alternatives. Cruelty is Not Green: crueltyisnotgreen.com/
2. beautiful: goes to desire/coveting what belongs to an animal.
3. need fur to keep warm in cold climates: does not apply to the fur raised on factory fur farms for luxury fashion, unless mink are being raised to clothe Arctic explorers.
4. long lasting: yes, by all means recycle it. Don’t need to keep producing more.
5. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was: So why did he give it to the animals??? Why didn’t he give it directly to us??? Why don’t we have our own fur, right on our own backs? We are to practice responsible stewardship of the animals and the planet. We are allowed to use animals for food and clothing. We are not to ABUSE animals for food or clothing, and utilizing animals for unnecessary luxury clothing goes to desire/want/and vanity, not to an authentic NEED. We have utilized animals throughout history, and have survived harsh climates because of this. Civilization had progressed to the point where the services of animals are no longer needed for our survival. The good steward will “retire” the animals that he no longer needs. The “ox” has been “retired”. The “horse” and the “mule” have been “retired.” The “fur animal” is no longer NEEDED, we have many compassionate alternatives available to us TODAY, in MODERN SOCIETY.

Thanks for that link. Very interesting article. Yes fur is not green.

 

[Marfran]

Marfran. Will answer you later. I have to rush off to walk a dog in the rain that belongs to a crippled old lady. Can you imagine that. A cruel mink farmer actually giving a poor dog a break from his confinment. Next you will be calling me an animal lover.

Yes, anything’s possible!!! What a wonderful thing to do for a woman so that she can keep her dog, who I’m sure gives her companionship and brightens her life.

I would like to mention that the actions of people against you, as you previously posted, are questions of ethics themselves. If you protest anything and feel that it is wrong–how do you facilitate change??? By attacking people physically??? By throwing fake blood, tomatoes, etc??? (This applies to other situations as well.)

cassini: I believe that you mentioned that you were retired. Did you leave the industry because it was just time to retire, or because of social pressure to do so, or did the decline in the interest/popularity of fur affect your decision?

And do you yourself have any issue with some of the modern techniques being utilized in the industry that you are now retired from?

 

[vz71]

Now I see it is the ‘need’ or not that determines ethics. Well there are thousands who feel the ‘need’ to have and wear a fur coat. So, that is the end to the ‘need’ ethics, no?

Afraid it doesn’t.
Various animal rights activists here wish to dictate your wants and needs.

 

[vz71]

Is it ethical to raise animals in captivity, to have them live unnatural lives in cages, and then to kill them for their skins, so that affluent women may wear luxury fur coats?

Given that there is no suffering (as shown in the quote) absolutely.

Is it ethical to do this to animals (living sentient beings), when in the year 2009, we are much advanced from the age of the caveman, and have no NEED to clothe ourselves anymore this way. We have more superior and compassionate alternatives available to us TODAY.

Morality is timeless.
Wether the date is 33 AD, 2009 AD, or 205005 AD, what is right will always be right and what is wrong will always be wrong.

 

[vz71]

A woman can, it has been pointed out, choose to purchase a ***second hand fur ***and have it refitted and restyled. This is far less expensive than purchasing new, it does not promote the continuation of more animals being killed for their fur, and it performs the ecological function of recycling.

Nope, it still supports the industry you have been railing against for the entirety of this thread.

 

[vz71]

1. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was: So why did he give it to the animals??? Why didn’t he give it directly to us??? Why don’t we have our own fur, right on our own backs?

And if God had intended us to fly we would have been created with wings.

 

[Marfran]

A woman can, it has been pointed out, choose to purchase a ***second hand fur ***and have it refitted and restyled. This is far less expensive than purchasing new, it does not promote the continuation of more animals being killed for their fur, and it performs the ecological function of recycling.

Nope, it still supports the industry you have been railing against for the entirety of this thread.

Actually it does not. Buying an antique supports the antique industry, the recycling industry, the second hand industry. Recycling a(ny) product actually helps to reduce the production of **new **products.

 

[Marfran]

And if God had intended us to fly we would have been created with wings.

So then should we fly??? Jesus didn’t fly (on an airplane).

 

[vz71]

Actually it does not. Buying an antique supports the antique industry, the recycling industry, the second hand industry. Recycling a(ny) product actually helps to reduce the production of **new **products.

It advertises.

 

[bigfootbob]

So then should we fly??? Jesus didn’t fly (on an airplane).

He ascended to Heaven.

 

[Marfran]

It advertises.

It advertises what??? That you took Grandma’s old fur and recycled it??? Are you going to put a sign on your back saying “I recycled, but don’t do what I do–BUY NEW!”

 

[Marfran]

He ascended to Heaven.

But he didn’t fly the friendly skies.

 

[bigfootbob]

But he didn’t fly the friendly skies.

:ehh: Call me stupid, but I don’t get it.

 

[Marfran]

Morality is timeless.
Wether the date is 33 AD, 2009 AD, or 205005 AD, what is right will always be right and what is wrong will always be wrong.

Morality must take into consideration relevant differences in historical time periods. The ways in which our food and clothing are raised and manufactured TODAY did not exist 2000 years ago–in fact, the way that our food and clothing is raised/manufactured has changed significantly in just the last 50 years, bringing new ethical considerations to the table.

Is it ethical to anally electrocute a captive fox? Ask someone from the year 1 A.D. Is it ethical to expose workers to high levels of toxins and pesticides in the workplace? Ask someone from the year 1 A.D. Is it ethical to feed growth hormones and anti-biotics to animals used for human consumption? Ask someone from the year 1 A.D. Technological advancement changes the playing field and brings new ethical challenges for us, and we must responsibly consider what “advancements” are for the greater good, and which are for the greater damage/detriment to society.

 

[Marfran]

:ehh: Call me stupid, but I don’t get it.

People say Jesus ate fish–so it is OK to eat fish. Jesus wore sandals–so it is OK to wear sandals (made of leather–or were they made of twine?) Jesus did not fly on an airplane–so using the same logic we should also not fly on airplanes.

My previous post refers to technological advancement. Is all technology good??? Seems we have to carefully weigh everything, and the answers are not always so easy.

P.S. I bet that Jesus did not own a mink coat!!! And I bet that Mary did not have one either.

 

[bigfootbob]

People say Jesus ate fish–so it is OK to eat fish. Jesus wore sandals–so it is OK to wear sandals (made of leather–or were they made of twine?) Jesus did not fly on an airplane–so using the same logic we should also not fly on airplanes.

You do not get the point of the argument. Because Jesus did something, it is not morally wrong. You can’t switch it around obviously.

My previous post refers to technological advancement. Is all technology good??? Seems we have to carefully weigh everything, and the answers are not always so easy.
P.S. I bet that Jesus did not own a mink coat!!!

I’ll bet he didn’t condemn people wearing them either.

 

[vz71]

Morality must take into consideration relevant differences in historical time periods.

I will repeat.
Morality is timeless.

What is moral now always was and always will be.
What is immoral now always was and always will be.

Anything less is moral relativism.