Ethics of Fur

[4elise]

A sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skilled physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. There is no fair play in hunting. The playing field is tipped and skewed in the favor of the guy with the artificial power. Now if you give a gun to a deer, teach him how to use it, sound the gong, and declare that the one still standing is the winner with this match of equal advantage, then you have a sport. What you have now, masquerading as a sport is just abuse of power and cruelty. Men who feel small and inadequate should just get a prescription of viagra and quit bullying the animals under the guise of conservation or whatever other excuse they are using.

Another option to equal the field - bare-handed hunting (just kidding) the image of the deer with a rifle is right out of a Gary Larson comic!!

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t believe it is ethical to kill an animal for fur in today’s modern society unless you have no other way of getting or making clothing. Now, in ancient societies I could see where it would be ethical but not in today’s modern society.

 

[Marfran]

I don’t believe it is ethical to kill an animal for fur in today’s modern society unless you have no other way of getting or making clothing. Now, in ancient societies I could see where it would be ethical but not in today’s modern society.

Exactly. The CCC says that we may use animals for food and clothing, but that we must also treat them kindly, and not inflict unnecessary suffering on them. In TODAY’S modern society there is almost NO authentic need for animal fur or pelt, and animals raised on fur farms are cruelly treated and killed so that affluent customers may wear “luxury” furs. I would think that our discussion here would come to a unanimous conclusion–however it seems that the hunters on this thread think otherwise(?)

Can we do whatever we want to animals???

How about the"canned" trophy hunting??? That’s where wealthy participants pay big money to have the opportunity to shoot a retired circus or zoo animal.

And “sports” hunting. Maybe that’s a topic in and of itself. If you are hunting to feed your family and have an authentic need, then I would say you fall into the legitimate use category, but if you are hunting for the pleasure or the*** fun ***of it, then I would say that killing an ***unarmed ***animal is ethically wrong.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

JoeJetson;5801810:

A sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skilled physical activity requiring commitment and fair play

. There is no fair play in hunting. The playing field is tipped and skewed in the favor of the guy with the artificial power. Now if you give a gun to a deer, teach him how to use it, sound the gong, and declare that the one still standing is the winner with this match of equal advantage, then you have a sport. What you have now, masquerading as a sport is just abuse of power and cruelty. Men who feel small and inadequate should just get a prescription of viagra and quit bullying the animals under the guise of conservation or whatever other excuse they are using.

Another option to equal the field - bare-handed hunting (just kidding) the image of the deer with a rifle is right out of a Gary Larson comic!!

Deer run really fast. Much faster than people. And I don’t think 1 group of hunters each get multiple deer when they hunt. I lived in a major matropolitan city, and just five minutes into the suburbs, I saw 2 deer on the side of the road. They could have easily jumped out into the highway and hurt somone and be killed at the same time. And I don’t mean a country road, a major highway.

 

[Tosk]

Exactly. The CCC says that we may use animals for food and clothing, but that we must also treat them kindly, and not inflict unnecessary suffering on them. In TODAY’S modern society there is almost NO authentic need for animal fur or pelt, and animals raised on fur farms are cruelly treated and killed so that affluent customers may wear “luxury” furs. I would think that our discussion here would come to a unanimous conclusion–however it seems that the hunters on this thread think otherwise(?)

Can we do whatever we want to animals???

How about the"canned" trophy hunting??? That’s where wealthy participants pay big money to have the opportunity to shoot a retired circus or zoo animal.

And “sports” hunting. Maybe that’s a topic in and of itself. If you are hunting to feed your family and have an authentic need, then I would say you fall into the legitimate use category, but if you are hunting for the pleasure or the*** fun ***of it, then I would say that killing an ***unarmed ***animal is ethically wrong.

Well, clothing is certainly a need. It is true that you can find other forms of clothing that are almost as good as fur but I doubt the catechism means that we can only use animals if we have a genuine life or death need.

Think about it, in todays world there is also no authentic life or death “need” for animals as a food source. Many people are able to live long lives with out ever consuming meat and there are many other sources of protein available. Can anyone honestly say that they absolutely need animal protein to survive? or maybe our need for animals as food comes from our rather expensive and affluent tastes.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Well, clothing is certainly a need. It is true that you can find other forms of clothing that are almost as good as fur but I doubt the catechism means that we can only use animals if we have a genuine life or death need.

Think about it, in todays world there is also no authentic life or death “need” for animals as a food source. Many people are able to live long lives with out ever consuming meat and there are many other sources of protein available. Can anyone honestly say that they absolutely need animal protein to survive? or maybe our need for animals as food comes from our rather expensive and affluent tastes.

You know no one that is a hypoglycemic or a brittlediebetic , don’t you? My very hypoglycemic mother is a much healthier person since going on that evil Atkins diet. This might have been better if she would have gone on it when I was growing up.;

 

[athansor]

Think about it, in todays world there is also no authentic life or death “need” for animals as a food source. Many people are able to live long lives with out ever consuming meat and there are many other sources of protein available. Can anyone honestly say that they absolutely need animal protein to survive? or maybe our need for animals as food comes from our rather expensive and affluent tastes.

I agree, I don’t think that there are any (or very few) people who need animal protein to survive. In most parts of the world, it’s possible to live well on a completely plant-based diet. In fact, there is a lot of peer-reviewed research showing that not eating animal protein is healthier. Combine that with the cruelty in many modern animal production methods (Slaughterhouse is a good read) and it’s hard to justify eating meat.

 

[vz71]

I have observed crows stay and feed a wounded crow. I see the responses of my dogs to my pain. I have seen one of dogs pine away and die when her companion died.

And we also have documented where robots we program to work with each other begin to lie to each other to give themselves an advantage over others.

The action of thye lie would seem an emotional response until one realizes these are robots that cannot have emotions.

 

[vz71]

Exactly. The CCC says that we may use animals for food and clothing, but that we must also treat them kindly, and not inflict unnecessary suffering on them. In TODAY’S modern society there is almost NO authentic need for animal fur or pelt, and animals raised on fur farms are cruelly treated and killed so that affluent customers may wear “luxury” furs. I would think that our discussion here would come to a unanimous conclusion–however it seems that the hunters on this thread think otherwise(?)

Do you subscribe to asceticism?

I am having a hard time understanding this need to hold an animals life on such a high pedestal.

 

[athansor]

You know no one that is a hypoglycemic or a brittlediebetic , don’t you? My very hypoglycemic mother is a much healthier person since going on that evil Atkins diet. This might have been better if she would have gone on it when I was growing up.;

I don’t personally know any people who are brittle diabetic (I had to look that one up), but I know hypoglycemic vegetarians, and I even know people who follow a vegan version of the Atkins diet. I think that too much protein is bad for most people, but for those whose health requires it, a low-carb diet can be done that is still vegetarian or even vegan.

 

[athansor]

Do you subscribe to asceticism?

I am having a hard time understanding this need to hold an animals life on such a high pedestal.

There’s a big difference I think between wanting to avoid causing needless suffering and holding animals on a high pedestal.

It’s like when I tell people I’m vegan, and they say, well, why do you care more about animals than people (or why don’t you care more about unborn babies?)?

Being vegan doesn’t interfere with my ability to work for pro-life causes, in fact, in some ways it reinforces it. For most people, avoiding buying fur, not hunting, not eating meat, not supporting dog fighting, etc., doesn’t prevent them from caring for other human, and doesn’t draw them away from God. I don’t understand why some people seem to be so threatened by or bothered by someone else’s choice to try to minimize animal suffering.

 

[bigfootbob]

Maybe you’d be safer on a bicycle.

A man from our church was stopped at a stop sign in town, when a buck ran into his vehicle -and somehow totaled it.

 

[philialeaf]

And we also have documented where robots we program to work with each other begin to lie to each other to give themselves an advantage over others.

The action of thye lie would seem an emotional response until one realizes these are robots that cannot have emotions.

Animals are living beings; robots are programmed things.

 

[philialeaf]

Marfran, I see the connection between raising and killing animals for fur, and trophy hunting. But I do think they are separate issues and it might be easier to start a separate thread dedicated to the hunting discussion, if that’s okay with you?

 

[4elise]

Well, clothing is certainly a need. It is true that you can find other forms of clothing that are almost as good as fur but I doubt the catechism means that we can only use animals if we have a genuine life or death need.

Think about it, in todays world there is also no authentic life or death “need” for animals as a food source. Many people are able to live long lives with out ever consuming meat and there are many other sources of protein available. Can anyone honestly say that they absolutely need animal protein to survive? or maybe our need for animals as food comes from our rather expensive and affluent tastes.

you won’t get an arguement from me on that point… We do not need animal protein either so that is the logical conclusion

 

[fultonfish]

gotquestions.org/animal-rights.html

People come before animals.

In verse 28 of Genesis 1: God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth.

Here’s the full verse 28:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

 

[Marfran]

There’s a big difference I think between wanting to avoid causing needless suffering and holding animals on a high pedestal.

It’s like when I tell people I’m vegan, and they say, well, why do you care more about animals than people (or why don’t you care more about unborn babies?)?

Being vegan doesn’t interfere with my ability to work for pro-life causes, in fact, in some ways it reinforces it. For most people, avoiding buying fur, not hunting, not eating meat, not supporting dog fighting, etc., doesn’t prevent them from caring for other human, and doesn’t draw them away from God. I don’t understand why some people seem to be so threatened by or bothered by someone else’s choice to try to minimize animal suffering.

Right on!!! You took the words right out of my mouth!

 

[Marfran]

gotquestions.org/animal-rights.html

People come before animals.

In verse 28 of Genesis 1: God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth.

Here’s the full verse 28:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Your link is not a Catholic link. Any questions about animals I would consult Catholic Concern for Animals.

People come before animals? No one said that they didn’t. So your position is that man can do whatever he wants to animals–that he can raise animals for unnecessary fur–that he can subject them to discomfort and suffering, that he can anally electrocute them–for their fur??? So that the missus can drape herself in mink or fox for a night on the town???

 

[severus68]

And we also have documented where robots we program to work with each other begin to lie to each other to give themselves an advantage over others.

The action of thye lie would seem an emotional response until one realizes these are robots that cannot have emotions.

Honestly, are you really interested in a discussion. You do not have to agree with my or any other person’s views but you seem interested in only what you say.

 

[Marfran]

Marfran, I see the connection between raising and killing animals for fur, and trophy hunting. But I do think they are separate issues and it might be easier to start a separate thread dedicated to the hunting discussion, if that’s okay with you?

Well, I started the thread with the idea to consider the moral ramifications of fur farming. Threads always wander and explore related and pertinent corollaries, so I added the trophy hunt, since it too is the killing of an animal for a want/desire, not for an authentic need.

I think what is turning up here is that many people see that fur farming is an abuse of power, and that killing animals solely for their fur or pelts is TODAY, not an authentic need. There are some who see fur farming as wrong, yet who feel other uses of animals are OK. So I think it is wise to separate “fur” from “food.” One may hunt and kill an animal for “food” and also use the pelt, yet not fall under the same category as the fur farmer.

And hunting does probably deserve it’s own thread. Hunting as opposed to factory farming meat. People hunt for a number of reasons–but the trophy hunter is not interested in meat, and his objective is similar to the fur farmer.

What really surprises me is anyone defending fur farming. I can understand defending the use of animals as food (though I personally do not feel most of us need to eat animals or their by-products), but in this day and age, the use of animals for their fur/pelt seems very unnecessary and outdated.