Ethics of Fur

[Marfran]

Human beings also have the instinct for survival. Fear comes into it. Why would they be worried about their survival if they do not fear they will not survive. They suffer and so they feel. Surely you are not saying animals do not feel pain too?

Yes, fear is a manifestation of the instinct of survival.

 

[Marfran]

There is a survival instinct shared by most creatures on the planet.
I would first believe that it is that instinct that makes animals run when hunted before I would buy into the idea that they feel fear.

??? They feel fear, therefore they run, and hopefully outrun the hunter and survive. You are trying to divorce the fear from the instinct of survival (for the animals)???

I have actually worked with animals that have fear-issues. Here’s an article from Temple Grandin on fear and pain as experienced by animals. grandin.com/welfare/fear.pain.stress.html

 

[vz71]

Human beings also have the instinct for survival. Fear comes into it. Why would they be worried about their survival if they do not fear they will not survive. They suffer and so they feel. Surely you are not saying animals do not feel pain too?

Not at all. I question if an animal experiences any type of emotions that we could relate to at all.

I do not believe we could say with any authority that an animal experiences fear. Or love. Or joy. etc.

 

[vz71]

Yes, fear is a manifestation of the instinct of survival.

Is it?

The instinct may manifest itself as fear in a human being of something.
But how can you say with any degree of certainty that any other animal feels the same?

I propose that any reference to animal emotions is out of place in any type of discussion except the realm of speculation.

 

[vz71]

They feel fear, therefore they run, and hopefully outrun the hunter and survive. You are trying to divorce the fear from the instinct of survival (for the animals)???

I have actually worked with animals that have fear-issues. Here’s an article from Temple Grandin on fear and pain as experienced by animals. grandin.com/welfare/fear.pain.stress.html

Without some kind of psychic ability, I highly doubt you know what is going on in the brain of any animal.
Further, even if such an ability were to present itself, there is no common reference. And therefore no way to know if what we know of as fear is the same in the lesser species.

The speculation that an animal is afraid has no place in a discussion of the ethics involved in killing the animal. Ethics require concrete fact, not speculation.

 

[Greebus]

Is it?

The instinct may manifest itself as fear in a human being of something.
But how can you say with any degree of certainty that any other animal feels the same?

I propose that any reference to animal emotions is out of place in any type of discussion except the realm of speculation.

You obviously haven’t been around animals and if you have you are totally blind, how unfortunate.

 

[vz71]

You obviously haven’t been around animals and if you have you are totally blind, how unfortunate.

It is not logical to anthropomorphize our emotions.

Projecting our emotions upon other animals is the first step in allowing our emotions guide a decision best left to the brain.

 

[Tosk]

Ok–the question is: Is it ethical for **modern, civilized **man ***to raise and kill ***animals for their fur?

Hunting rabbits for food and utilizing the fur would be in a different category. Your method is not the method used in the factory fur industry.

And, one can argue that it is OK to hunt for food, but is it ethical to hunt an animal solely for the purpose of trophy???

If the argument is that it is wrong to inflict pain on an animal then I don’t see that intentions or how the animal is used makes that big of a moral difference.

As long as the animal isn’t being pushed to extinction I don’t see it as unethical to use animals for their fur. It might stir up strong emotions in some people to see cute little animals killed but that doesn’t mean it is unethical. Animals are not sentient beings, have no self-awareness, and no consciousness that we would recognize. We also know that they lack an immortal soul and simply cease to exist when they die. any emotions that you see in your animals are just projections.

 

[Marfran]

You obviously haven’t been around animals and if you have you are totally blind, how unfortunate.

Or even studied them scientifically.

 

[Marfran]

It is not logical to anthropomorphize our emotions.

Projecting our emotions upon other animals is the first step in allowing our emotions guide a decision best left to the brain.

I think that you are trying to divert attention from the topic. So from your perspective, can we ethically raise animals for fur in a factory setting (as opposed to hunting them in the wild) and kill them by anal electrocution? And can we ethically hunt animals, not for food, but for their fur/pelts, for the sole purpose of being a wall ornament? Please share with us your ethical argument for or against this behavior.

 

[Marfran]

If the argument is that it is wrong to inflict pain on an animal then I don’t see that intentions or how the animal is used makes that big of a moral difference.

The argument is: ***is it wrong ***to subject animals to suffering and pain for their fur/pelt in the situation of factory fur farm confinement? We are not speaking of hunting for “food” and using the pelt in addition to the meat. Our example here is only considering the raising and killing of ***confined ***animals. BTW: many European countries are enacting laws and completely banning fur farms.

As long as the animal isn’t being pushed to extinction I don’t see it as unethical to use animals for their fur.

Again, we are not discussing wild animals, we are discussing animals specifically bred and confined to be killed for their fur.

It might stir up strong emotions in some people to see cute little animals killed but that doesn’t mean it is unethical.

So you digress ? from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that tells us:

**Respect for the integrity of creation **

**2415 **The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.

2416 **Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. **

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

**2418 **It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Animals are not sentient beings, have no self-awareness, and no consciousness that we would recognize.

I think you will have difficulty finding anyone, especially in the scientific and medical community, that agrees with your position. The word sentient means capable of suffering and feeling pain. I can not imagine that that anyone really believes that animals are non-feeling, unconscious entities like rocks that move.

We also know that they lack an immortal soul and simply cease to exist when they die. any emotions that you see in your animals are just projections.

And because animals have a mortal soul, as opposed to an immortal one, means that we can abuse and mistreat them? Please explain your logic.

 

[vz71]

I think that you are trying to divert attention from the topic.

Apologies if I have given you this impression.
I do not wish to divert the topic, I wish to narrow it to the relevent information rather then introduce emotions on our part or the imagined emotions on the animals part into the fray.
If you wish to argue the ethics of fur, that is fine. But let’s not base any of these arguments on things we cannot know with any degree of certainty. We should base the arguments solidly upon the catechism and whatever scientifically provable information is there.

So from your perspective, can we ethically raise animals for fur in a factory setting (as opposed to hunting them in the wild) and kill them by anal electrocution?

Maybe. Is the death painless? Is there needless suffering involved?

And can we ethically hunt animals, not for food, but for their fur/pelts, for the sole purpose of being a wall ornament? Please share with us your ethical argument for or against this behavior.

Sure, why not.
If there is no needless suffering caused, then I see little issue with this.

 

[Marfran]

Apologies if I have given you this impression.
I do not wish to divert the topic, I wish to narrow it to the relevent information rather then introduce emotions on our part or the imagined emotions on the animals part into the fray.
If you wish to argue the ethics of fur, that is fine. But let’s not base any of these arguments on things we cannot know with any degree of certainty. We should base the arguments solidly upon the catechism and whatever scientifically provable information is there.

Maybe. Is the death painless? Is there needless suffering involved?

Sure, why not.
If there is no needless suffering caused, then I see little issue with this.

There is plenty of needless suffering involved, and then some. Many fur farmers have voluntarily gone out of business, due to the negative societal pressure, and the declining interest in fur. European countries are taking a hard look at the industry, and some are outlawing it, and banning it altogether, because ***it is ***cruel and needless.

So, I take it that you want to argue ***for ***the continuation of this industry. What can you present to support your position???

 

[Marfran]

It is not logical to anthropomorphize our emotions.

No one is doing that here.

 

[Marfran]

So from your perspective, can we ethically raise animals for fur in a factory setting (as opposed to hunting them in the wild) and kill them by anal electrocution?

Maybe. Is the death painless? Is there needless suffering involved?

I don’t know, sounds like **anal electrocution **might be more fun that regular electrocution.

I believe that the UK was the first to ban this type of cruel slaughter. It was banned in the state of New York in 2007, here’s some info for you:
hsus.org/furfree/news/new_york_bans_anal_electrocution.html

“The one-step process of anal and genital electrocution forces a surge of electricity into the animal’s body through electrodes, and although the animal can appear rigid and motionlessness, he or she may remain conscious and suffering while experiencing the full force of a heart attack. Such a method of killing is considered unacceptable by American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) guidelines.”

 

[bigfootbob]

The artificial fabrics do better in keeping someone warm and they are certainly not more expensive. It may have been justified in the past when these were not available but now? It is wanton cruelty to breed and kill animals for their fur.

I wander how many need to hunt to eat. To hunt for the thrill is sickening. It is not sport. The animals do not have a choice. There is something evil about enjoying the fear of an animal in pursuing it and then killing it. Also who are these who want parts of dead animals on their walls, on their floors and on them?

Hunters are the biggest group of conservationists there is. In 2000, over 15.1 million hunters gave 745.2 million dollars for conservation and education in the US.

 

[JoeJetson]

Hunters are the biggest group of conservationists there is. In 2000, over 15.1 million hunters gave 745.2 million dollars for conservation and education in the US.

Hunters are kind of a deceptive bunch. They are not genuine conservationists. It’s like people who go to church just to look good and holy, but are really louses. If we give enough money then the people can’t complain about us blowing off animal’s heads.

 

[severus68]

Hunters are kind of a deceptive bunch. They are not genuine conservationists. It’s like people who go to church just to look good and holy, but are really louses. If we give enough money then the people can’t complain about us blowing off animal’s heads.

I have to agree. Looks like they want the animals around for their hunting pleasure.

 

[severus68]

Is it?

The instinct may manifest itself as fear in a human being of something.
But how can you say with any degree of certainty that any other animal feels the same?

I propose that any reference to animal emotions is out of place in any type of discussion except the realm of speculation.

If animals were stones with no feelings, innate things, then there is nothing to discuss. They are sentient beings. Their emotions do come into it.

With regard to your earlier post, have you never kept a pet or observed an animal?

 

[bigfootbob]

Hunters are kind of a deceptive bunch. They are not genuine conservationists. It’s like people who go to church just to look good and holy, but are really louses. If we give enough money then the people can’t complain about us blowing off animal’s heads.

“Encouragement of a proper hunting spirit, a proper love of sport, instead of being incompatible with a love of nature and wild things, offers the best guaranty for the preservation of wild things.”
–Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. President,…
Nobel Peace Prize Winner, NRA Life Member
Would you mind looking at this link and reading at least some of it before you respond.? nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=124