Ethics of Fur

[athansor]

if that meal goes to waste then yes just as guilty of sin as a factory farmer. Same degree of sin. Is your position on not eating meat worth the chance of not obtaining eternal life?

Interesting position.
So, if I don’t eat meat, and don’t buy it, don’t order it, etc., then I’m OK on that area.
If I don’t eat meat, and it’s offered to me at a visit, but other people eat it, then I’m OK, right?
It’s only if I don’t eat meat that’s been offered to me and then it goes into the trash that I’m in trouble, right?
What if I tell the host that I don’t eat meat, and they cook only meat anyway?

Aren’t you also assuming then that factory farming is sinful? Otherwise, how could the sin of wasting meat be of the same degree?

This kind of makes me think of another question.
What would you do if you are a family of omnivores and one of your children wanted to stop eating meat. If they lived at home, would you support them in this? If they lived on their own, would you prepare a vegetarian dish for them when they came home to visit? Would you ever sneak meat into the dish of someone who is vegetarian or vegan?

 

[4elise]

if that meal goes to waste then yes just as guilty of sin as a factory farmer. Same degree of sin. Is your position on not eating meat worth the chance of not obtaining eternal life?

This might surprise you Sean - I agree with you on this.

Happily I have never been in a position (in this country) where I could not offer the meat portion of a meal to a fellow diner, or take it to go and offer it to someone else.

 

[severus68]

I don’t have a problem with it. I’m pointing out hypocrisy. What I don’t understand is why you animal rights folks don’t have a problem with it. If you care about these animals, let them live the way GOD created them to live.

I cannot go back to the past and change things. Animals can also be our companions and help us. There is nothng wrong with that. I am against selective breeding to make flatter noses for some breeds of cats and dogs, dockng , teacup dogs etc. That is unnecessary and cruel. This should be for another thread however.

 

[JoeJetson]

I thought this thread was about the ethics of raising animals in captivity for their fur. Everybody just wants to talk about food, or more specifically meat. So I started a new thread, if anyone is interested. It’s called **Jesus ate lamb so that we could eat hamburgers, or not? ** forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5845725#post5845725

 

[fultonfish]

Well, if it’s ok to kill animals so we can eat them, why is it not to kill them so we can wear their fur?

 

[PeterMuz]

You know, a couple of times in this thread, and in the others like it currently on the board, I’ve stated my reasons for being vegan. I’ve also never stated that it’s sinful or somehow contrary to Church teaching for people to eat meat. I’ve even been compelled to state my views on life issues to answer the criticism that all vegans are pro-abortion. If there’s more that I can do to help someone understand where I’m coming from, I’d be glad to do it.

Yet, I keep getting followed around with labels of hypocrisy and generalizations that some people have about vegans. It’s funny, I think perhaps a lot of meat eaters are feeling judged by the vegans on threads like this. Maybe that’s because we’re online instead of interacting in real life. Vegans are pretty few and far between (I wonder how many vegans most of you know in real life, and how you interact with them). If I meet someone for the first time, the fact that they likely eat meat doesn’t affect at all how I view them. 99% of the people I know are omnivores, even though I hang out at vegetarian friendly restaurants and stores. If you meet someone for the first time, and they are, say, wearing a t-shirt that says vegan, or you have some other way to tell that they don’t eat meat, does that affect how you view them?

You probably know a lot more vegans than I do. I got my data from polls online at secular vegetarian sites plus the few vegans I know in real life. For you to get statistics like that, how many vegans did you talk to?

Please show me where I or anyone else said"ALL vegans are pro-choice".

In regards to the hypocrisy remark… all I am saying is that you cannot use Catholic teaching or the Catechism as a reason not to eat meat. The quote from the Catechism, and I do not remember if it was you or someone else that posted it, is absolutely not saying that we should not eat meat. It does say that it is unworthy to spend money on animals when it could go to the relief of human suffering. However you want to interpret this is fine, but you have to be consistent.

If I were to see someone with a shirt saying that are a vegan, no it does not affect the way I see that person. I have met a ton of vegans, most of them are very liberal. One of my best friends from high school is a vegan. She does not eat meat because she thinks animals are cute and she does not need to eat them. That, I do not have a problem with. She also thinks that if I or anyone else wants to eat meat that is totally fine and would not discourage it.

So let me ask you this. Since most people eat meat and it does not surprise you that the person you meet for the first time eats meat, what about the person you meet who is a vegan? Do you look at they person ANY different than if the person were to eat meat?

 

[athansor]

So let me ask you this. Since most people eat meat and it does not surprise you that the person you meet for the first time eats meat, what about the person you meet who is a vegan? Do you look at they person ANY different than if the person were to eat meat?

When I meet a vegan, it’s just like meeting someone who is in my profession, or someone who has kids the same age as me, someone from my hometown, someone from my church, someone who likes the Flames, someone who plays hockey or someone who likes the same style of dance as I do. Basically, the same way I react to someone who shares a connection with me.
I don’t know if that counts as looking at them ANY different. If I found out one of my students were vegan, it wouldn’t affect how I treated them in class, just like when someone asks for time off for hunting, and are treated the same as someone who asked for time off for any other reason. So, while someone who is vegan is likely to be someone I have something in common with, it doesn’t cause me to treat them in a significantly preferential way.

 

[athansor]

Please show me where I or anyone else said"ALL vegans are pro-choice".

In regards to the hypocrisy remark… all I am saying is that you cannot use Catholic teaching or the Catechism as a reason not to eat meat. The quote from the Catechism, and I do not remember if it was you or someone else that posted it, is absolutely not saying that we should not eat meat. It does say that it is unworthy to spend money on animals when it could go to the relief of human suffering. However you want to interpret this is fine, but you have to be consistent.

I was incorrect in saying all, my apologies. It looks like you said 98% of vegans are pro-abortion in your experience. There does seem to be some connection between being liberal and being pro-abortion in your posting though, and it is possible to be both liberal and pro-life.

The quote from the Catechism talks about causing unnecessary animal suffering. One possible way to interpret that is that eating meat causes animal suffering and eating meat is unnecessary. Is there something wrong with the logic of that interpretation?

As far as the second part…if the Catechism is saying that it is wrong to spend any money on pets (as opposed to spending money on pets that would have otherwise been going to relieve human suffering), then isn’t any pet owner going against that? Is your point that if a vegan is going to pay attention to the above interpretation of the first part of the statement, then they should pay attention to the second part and not own pets, but since a meat eater doesn’t interpret the first part as suggesting they shouldn’t eat meat, they are also not bound by the second part?

 

[PeterMuz]

I was incorrect in saying all, my apologies. It looks like you said 98% of vegans are pro-abortion in your experience. There does seem to be some connection between being liberal and being pro-abortion in your posting though, and it is possible to be both liberal and pro-life.

The majority of liberals are pro-choice. If you going to adopt liberal thinking and liberal reasoning, I don’t know how you can be pro-life. I would love to hear someone is truly liberal explain why they are pro-life.

The quote from the Catechism talks about causing unnecessary animal suffering. One possible way to interpret that is that eating meat causes animal suffering and eating meat is unnecessary. Is there something wrong with the logic of that interpretation?

Yes, dead animals do not feel pain, therefore it does not cause the animal any suffering by eating it.

As far as the second part…if the Catechism is saying that it is wrong to spend any money on pets (as opposed to spending money on pets that would have otherwise been going to relieve human suffering), then isn’t any pet owner going against that? Is your point that if a vegan is going to pay attention to the above interpretation of the first part of the statement, then they should pay attention to the second part and not own pets, but since a meat eater doesn’t interpret the first part as suggesting they shouldn’t eat meat, they are also not bound by the second part?

I just want you and others to be consistent. I do not think that that quote from the Catechism says we should not eat meat, and I do not think it is wrong to own pets. I do not understand how you can say that the quote says we should not eat meat but its ok to have pets. That is hypocritical.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that you vegans are trying to push your beliefs onto us who disagree with you. If it were up to most of those I’ve been talking to on this thread, not one animal would ever be raised for the purpose of being killed for food. If you get what you want, we don’t eat meat.

I don’t care what you eat or don’t eat. If you want to not eat meat, GREAT.

 

[athansor]

Yes, dead animals do not feel pain, therefore it does not cause the animal any suffering by eating it.

Well, if one only ate animals that died of other causes, and weren’t purposely killed to for you to eat, then I wouldn’t see a problem with it.

 

[PeterMuz]

Well, if one only ate animals that died of other causes, and weren’t purposely killed to for you to eat, then I wouldn’t see a problem with it.

So are you saying it is morally wrong to kill an animal to eat it?

 

[PeterMuz]

Well, if one only ate animals that died of other causes, and weren’t purposely killed to for you to eat, then I wouldn’t see a problem with it.

If you say no, then we have wasted an incredible amount of time. If you say yes I would ask you to point to something from the early Church Fathers or the Catechism. I think we are going around in circles now.

I think at some point we are going to have to agree to disagree. I still have a problem with you vegans are trying to push your beliefs onto us who disagree with you. If it were up to most of those I’ve been talking to on this thread, not one animal would ever be raised for the purpose of being killed for food. If you get what you want, we don’t eat meat.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Is it ethical for modern, civilized man to raise and kill animals for their fur? YES!

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical???YES!

Any compelling reasons/moral imperatives to cease procuring animal fur, specifically by these methods?NO!

Any additional thoughts on hunting animals for the sole purpose of trophies, e.g., canned hunts that are designed specifically for the hunter to bring home an exotic trophy skin?? (This may be a related corollary to the fur farming topic–as it is about killing animals for their skins/fur and not for “food.”)

There is nothing wrong with hunting for food or sport!

Peace!

 

[athansor]

So are you saying it is morally wrong to kill an animal to eat it?

I use the Catechism quote to say that it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and be a vegan. I don’t believe I’ve tried in this thread to force my beliefs on anyone else, and I don’t in real life. While I can wish for a world in which no animals are raised for meat, I certainly don’t have the power to bring such a world about. If I do anything, I try to lead by example for my family and friends, but even my husband eats meat occasionally.

I feel it is morally wrong for me to kill an animal to eat it (or wear it), or for me to pay someone else to kill an animal and eat it. Most people don’t feel that way. In a moral sense, it’s kind of like drinking. Some people don’t feel comfortable drinking any alcohol, but they recognize that alcohol in moderation isn’t a sin for others.

To try to bring it full circle, I would think that most people who eat meat have some point where they draw the line. I imagine it’s a spectrum, with hardcore vegans like the Jainists on one end and people who are OK with all uses of animals on the other. In this thread, and the hunting thread, there is a lot of discussion where people talk about where they draw the line. Some people are troubled by hunting for trophies, some are troubled by the raising of animals for fur, some are troubled by events like bullfighting and dogfighting, etc. I don’t think that most of us on this thread are too far apart, and if we met IRL, we probably would get along…who knows, maybe some of you might even give my famous vegan green chile stew a try when I bring it to the next Church potluck.

 

[athansor]

The majority of liberals are pro-choice. If you going to adopt liberal thinking and liberal reasoning, I don’t know how you can be pro-life. I would love to hear someone is truly liberal explain why they are pro-life.

I’d like to start this up in a new thread.

 

[severus68]

.

I don’t care what you eat or don’t eat. If you want to not eat meat, GREAT.

[ifQUOTE=PeterMuz;5848189]The majority of liberals are pro-choice. If you going to adopt liberal thinking and liberal reasoning, I don’t know how you can be pro-life. I would love to hear someone is truly liberal explain why they are pro-le

I am pro all life. What is this about explaining please? If you respect life created by God, you would also respect the life of the unborn.

Yes, dead animals do not feel pain, therefore it does not cause the animal any suffering by eating it.

Its obvious the suffering talked of is in the killing.

I just want you and others to be consistent. I do not think that that quote from the Catechism says we should not eat meat, and I do not think it is wrong to own pets. I do not understand how you can say that the quote says we should not eat meat but its ok to have pets. That is hypocritical.

The Cathechism does not say we should not eat meat. one has said that. It does say that we should not cause needless suffering. If we believe that we do not need to eat meat, that for us, it would cause, to us, needless suffering, it is to us, a right decision we have made.

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that you vegans are trying to push your beliefs onto us who disagree with you. If it were up to most of those I’ve been talking to on this thread, not one animal would ever be raised for the purpose of being killed for food. If you get what you want, we don’t eat meat.

No one can force anyone into believing anything.

 

[vz71]

The Cathechism does not say we should not eat meat. one has said that. It does say that we should not cause needless suffering. If we believe that we do not need to eat meat, that for us, it would cause, to us, needless suffering, it is to us, a right decision we have made.

All of those ‘for us’ that you have in there indicates a moral relativism.

 

[4elise]

All of those ‘for us’ that you have in there indicates a moral relativism.

you and I have gone back and forth several times on that specific section of the CCC

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

I do not need fur
I do not need leather
I do not need beef
I do not need pork
I do not need chicken or turkey
I do not need eggs
I do not need dairy
I do not need fish

Since to have these IMHO causes animals to suffer or die needlessly I therefore:

I do not have fur
I do not wear leather
I do not eat beef
I do not eat port
I do not eat chicken or turkey
I do not eat eggs
I do not eat dairy
I do not eat fish

I do not find this to be moral relativism - I know that the CCC also says that

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.197 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.

The legitimacy of using animals for food and clothing is not being questioned.
It is the ‘needless suffering’ that is at issue. Given the OP — those of us living in a place where alternatives to keeping out the elements can simply follow this by choosing an alternative to fur.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Is it ethical for modern, civilized man to raise and kill animals for their fur?

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical???

Any compelling reasons/moral imperatives to cease procuring animal fur, specifically by these methods?

Any additional thoughts on hunting animals for the sole purpose of trophies, e.g., canned hunts that are designed specifically for the hunter to bring home an exotic trophy skin?? (This may be a related corollary to the fur farming topic–as it is about killing animals for their skins/fur and not for “food.”)

How about you make a case for stopping these practices based on Catholic moral teaching? Since you are the one hinting that they are not ethical, the burden is on you.

Peace,
Dante

 

[4elise]

How about you make a case for stopping these practices based on Catholic moral teaching? Since you are the one hinting that they are not ethical, the burden is on you.

Peace,
Dante

Something like 85% of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive in fur factory farms–is this ethical???

Given the CCC
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

And given that fur is* (for all applications that I am familiar with) *a luxury item — not a need - I believe that this section of the CCC clearly addresses this issue.