Ethics of Fur

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marfran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
4elise said:
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

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 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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps one does not NEED beef, but one needs food. Perhaps one does not need leather or fur, but one needs clothing. It is, as you pointed out in the CCC, perfectly legitimate for humans to use animals for food and clothing; what is contrary to human dignity is to treat animals cruelly – that is the heart of the “suffer or die needlessly” clause. It is not meant to suggest that killing animals for clothes when you are capable of creating synthetic fabrics is wrong. Note the absence of discussion about the proportionality of killing animals or taking their skins, as well as the absence of a suggestion that developed nations should find alternatives – things that are present in the ruling on the death penalty.

Furthermore, there are (even in the US and other developed nations) industries and individuals who depend on the use of animals for their furs and meat (as well as other parts); to suggest that the entire industry should be trashed is to suggest that all of those people should be without a job, even if it is temporarily. Add to that the shipping and distribution, the retail sale, and the restaurant industries, and you are talking about a huge ding in our economy. What solution can you come up with that would mitigate the suffering caused to humans (yes, we can suffer too!) by suddenly banning the trade of animal hides and meat?

[Edit] Finally, that you do not find your above analysis to be relativistic does not mean it isn’t. You are interpreting the CCC to fit your own ideology; it simply does not say that one has a moral obligation to find an alternative to animal skins/meat. You even enhance the relativism when you stress that your analysis is your “humble opinion”.

Peace,
Dante
 
4elise said:
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.
Click to expand...
Given the pope wears fur, I believe that the criteria you are expressing as ‘needless’ are not the same criteria followed by the church.
Unless you would like to claim authority and knowledge of the CCC beyond our pope.

Needless is leaving an animal to rot on the forest floor.
Needless is not utilizing the animal for anything other then the kill.

Sorry, but every animal that is skinned for the fur actually fulfills a need.
 
4elise said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please note the bolded words above.

This is your interpretation of one sentence of the CCC. I challenged the OP to make a case against these practices that is supported by what Catholic morality requires of us.

Peace,
Dante
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Perhaps one does not NEED beef, but one needs food. Perhaps one does not need leather or fur, but one needs clothing. It is, as you pointed out in the CCC, perfectly legitimate for humans to use animals for food and clothing; what is contrary to human dignity is to treat animals cruelly – that is the heart of the “suffer or die needlessly” clause. It is not meant to suggest that killing animals for clothes when you are capable of creating synthetic fabrics is wrong.

And I think this is the crux of the issue - and where people come to different conclusions based on this teaching… I believe that in fact - since we are capable of replacing fur (or leather) with synthetic fabric we should.
Note the absence of discussion about the proportionality of killing animals or taking their skins, as well as the absence of a suggestion that developed nations should find alternatives – things that are present in the ruling on the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
vz71 said:
Given the pope wears fur, I believe that the criteria you are expressing as ‘needless’ are not the same criteria followed by the church.
Unless you would like to claim authority and knowledge of the CCC beyond our pope.
Click to expand...
As has been answered before on this topic - the fur worn by the Pope Benedict is a fur that has been part of Vatican property since the 1960’s… this is a symbol of his position as leader of the Catholic Church and no - I have no problem with this.
Needless is leaving an animal to rot on the forest floor.
Needless is not utilizing the animal for anything other then the kill.

Sorry, but every animal that is skinned for the fur actually fulfills a need.
Click to expand...
I agree it is needless to leave an animal rot on the forest floor
I agree it is needless to not utilize an animal that has already been killed

However the words of the CCC that I was addressing, and which I believe apply to raising animals for fur:

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

Since fur is unnecessary in applications that I am familiar with (fur collars or coats for fashion) causing the animal to suffer or die needlessly are contrary to human dignity.
 
4elise said:
As has been answered before on this topic - the fur worn by the Pope Benedict is a fur that has been part of Vatican property since the 1960’s… this is a symbol of his position as leader of the Catholic Church and no - I have no problem with this.
Click to expand...
I see.
So you also make exceptions for symbology.

Are there any other exceptions to your catechism?
 
athansor said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is something I would like to address in another thread. Maybe nest week, I won’t be around a computer most of the weekend.
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.
Click to expand...
I would absolutely try your vegan green chile stew, I have no doubt you are a great cook. I am in no why opposed to eating vegan recipes. I grew up eating tempeh or tofu. I like tempeh and tofu is not bad either. I remember when I was like 14 yrs old, my mom make tofu that could have been mistake for scrambled eggs. I liked it.

You are probably right, we probably have more in common than we think. I don’t rule someone out as a friend because we disagree on an issue like this. I have lots of friends that I disagree with on different issues. We talk about it, here each other out, and if nothing else, agree to disagree. The thing is, if you want to be a vegan, I have no problem with that, I’d even support you in that. If we were friends and going out to eat, I would ask you where is a good vegan restaurant you like and we’d go there.

I think that are going to have to agree not to see eye to eye on this. I understand what you are trying to do with the Catechism quote, but I kind of disagree with how it is applied. But I also think that you have good intentions.
 
PeterMuz said:
This is something I would like to address in another thread. Maybe nest week, I won’t be around a computer most of the weekend.
Click to expand...
If you start a thread on alcohol, let us know. I’d be interested to hear how others feel about its prevalence in our society.
 
vz71 said:
👍

Smackdown in the schoolyard after class…who is with me?😃
Click to expand...
To quote that prominent gourmand, Jackie Gleason, you’re not really drunk unless when you’re laying on the floor you have to hold on to keep from falling off.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Furthermore, there are (even in the US and other developed nations) industries and individuals who depend on the use of animals for their furs and meat (as well as other parts); to suggest that the entire industry should be trashed is to suggest that all of those people should be without a job, even if it is temporarily. Add to that the shipping and distribution, the retail sale, and the restaurant industries, and you are talking about a huge ding in our economy. What solution can you come up with that would mitigate the suffering caused to humans (yes, we can suffer too!) by suddenly banning the trade of animal hides and meat?
Click to expand...
And what do workers do in other industries when technology changes or the item goes out of vogue? Anybody still making typewriters today? Cabbage Patch dolls? The workers follow the work and learn new trades and skills. Many European countries are currently outlawing fur farming because it is cruel. Meat is NOT used from these animals. All the money that people spend on luxury furs can easily be funneled into some other luxury item/business.
 
4elise said:
DanteAlighieri;5850903:
Perhaps one does not NEED beef, but one needs food. Perhaps one does not need leather or fur, but one needs clothing. It is, as you pointed out in the CCC, perfectly legitimate for humans to use animals for food and clothing; what is contrary to human dignity is to treat animals cruelly – that is the heart of the “suffer or die needlessly” clause. It is not meant to suggest that killing animals for clothes when you are capable of creating synthetic fabrics is wrong.
Click to expand...
And I think this is the crux of the issue - and where people come to different conclusions based on this teaching… I believe that in fact - since we are capable of replacing fur (or leather) with synthetic fabric we should.

That is the topic for another thread — and one I’ve certainly been engaged in! 😉

I do not believe that there is a chance that an entire industry would be trashed - but I do believe that Catholics should advocate for changes that reflect our faith in all animal businesses. A reduction in consumption could allow changes that would be more reflective of the teaching of the Church - for example on another thread I’ve discussed this type of thing with a Catholic rancher - there is evidence that not everyone out there in his business cares for cattle as well… poultry, dairy, eggs - what I learned about factory farming caused me to reflect on my choices and to make changes - not only for the animals, but the environment, people living in adjacent communities, use of resources, etc…

But this thread is about fur - I do not know of a legitimate use or real need of fur in the fashion industry - perhaps we could start there - try to influence the idea of owning a fur for fashion, status, etc… among our own communities. I know that among some it is a status of ‘I’ve arrived’ ‘I’m doing well’ — surely we can find another way to communicate that if such a thing is important to an individual?

Perhaps another topic, but the more synthetics we use, the more we use chemicals and petroleum products, which leave by-products, which can and do end up trashing the environment. Our stewardship of this planet and its flora and fauna must be balanced, no?

Too bad we didn’t get an owner’s manual for the Earth.
Click to expand...
 
Newbie2 said:
4elise;5850965:
Perhaps another topic, but the more synthetics we use, the more we use chemicals and petroleum products, which leave by-products, which can and do end up trashing the environment. Our stewardship of this planet and its flora and fauna must be balanced, no?

Too bad we didn’t get an owner’s manual for the Earth.
Click to expand...
Organic cotton is still cheaper than a mink coat!!! Yes, Newbie, there is a growing awareness towards what our textile production is doing to the planet. Hemp is a great material. Regular grown cotton utilizes a lot of pesticides.

ecostreet.com/blog/ethical-fashion/2008/04/11/which-textiles-are-the-most-eco-friendly/
Click to expand...
 
Whoh, whoh, whoh. The “ORIGINAL QUOTES” are not correct posts #371 and #372.
 
vz71 said:
I see.
So you also make exceptions for symbology.

Are there any other exceptions to your catechism?
Click to expand...
vz71:

Perhaps it is just me - but your posts always sound like you are so angry - “So…”

I love the Holy Father and completely understand that the fur he is wearing comes from an animal that died 50 years ago and is worn representative of his position as the leader of the Catholic Church.

Raising animals TODAY for fur when there is no need for it is IMHO just not in keeping with the teaching of the Church.

Now… I’ve no doubt you may again try to parse my answer to find a ‘gottcha’ but that is not the kind of back and forth communication I am really interested in -

Please feel free to ask a clarifying question and I will again try to answer it respectfully.
 
I found a very interesting report: I found it interesting that zoos use the carcasses to feed the animals. Poor zoo animals, especially the endangered ones, I wouldn’t want them to go hungry. :bighanky:

furcommission.com/resource/Resources/MFIUS.pdf
In the wild, most young mink don’t survive through the
first year. In contrast, a farmer’s care ensures that almost
all domesticated mink live until the end of the year,
when they are harvested. The best of the herd are selected
for breeding in the following spring, ensuring that
the farmer’s stock keeps improving.
Click to expand...
Although fur is the primary product for mink farmers,
nothing is wasted. An important secondary product is
the highly valued oil produced from the mink’s thick
layer of subcutaneous fat. Mink oil is used to condition
and preserve leather, and also in the manufacturing of
hypo-allergenic facial oils and cosmetics.
The carcasses are rarely eaten by humans as the scent
gland gives the meat a flavor which few enjoy. But
they still have their uses. Some farmers sell them
as crab bait, or give them to wildlife preserves,
zoos or aquariums. Others use them to make organic
compost. Or they may be rendered down to
provide raw materials for a wide range of products,
from pet food and organic fertilizers to tires,
paint and even cosmetics.
Last but not least, the nutrient-rich manure from fur
farms is in heavy demand as a natural crop fertilizer.
Click to expand...
Farmers are responsible for their animals’ care from
birth to death. While standards of animal care and farm
management are based largely on the expertise of mink
farmers themselves, when it comes to euthanasia they
adhere strictly to recommendations of the American
Veterinary Medical Association. Thus the only method
of euthanasia approved for mink by FCUSA is bottled
gas, either pure carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.When harvest time comes, a mobile unit is brought
to the animals’ pens to eliminate stress that might be
caused by transporting them long distances. This unit
includes a specially designed airtight container, prefilled
with gas. The animals are placed inside and immediately
rendered unconscious, and die quickly and humanely.
Click to expand...
 
Have you all ever watched what animals do to one another out in the wild?

B-R-U-TA-L.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top