Ethics of Fur

[DanteAlighieri]

So is it the rightful place of animals to be confined in a small cage for their entire life, then killed by anal electrocution or other method, to be then skinned, and made into luxury fur coats for us to wear on our backs?

Honestly, I don’t know enough about the process to debate it. But you’re dodging the issue:

I challenged the OP to make a case against the use of furs based on Catholic moral teaching. You attempted to do so (kudos), but I responded by challenging your interpretation of the CCC. Your above quoted reply does not stick to the argument at hand; it is merely an appeal to emotion.

I submit that there is not a cohesive argument to be made that it is inherently immoral to make, sell, and use products comprised of animal fur. To address your emotional appeal, it is a different matter whether particular methods of keeping animals and/or putting them down is immoral.

To the extent that I do not support cruel treatment of animals, I would agree with your emotional appeal – but you’ll have to forgive me for not merely taking your word for said treatment.

With regard to the topic at hand, however, I do not agree that we have a moral imperative to end the use of animal skins for clothing and other products.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think Dante might have missed your point regarding spend money that should instead be a priority to relief of human misery ----

I understood your reference to mean - the cost of breeding, raising, skinning, preparing the skins, for a luxury coat (even (or perhaps even more so) if the little critters live in luxury) could / should better be spent.

His point, I believe was that that section of the CCC referenced people ‘over loving’ their pets -

So - you know I agree with you Marfran 100% - I do not know of a ‘need’ for a $20,000 fur that justifies this use of animals per the CCC’s notation re the unnecessary suffering/death of animals -

I ALSO find it impossible to justify the cost that is incurred by those who raise these fur bearing animals - that is ultimately paid for by someone who wears the fur as a status symbol - when indeed this luxury item can be lived without quite easily, perhaps another section of the CCC references how we should use our resources - not related to animals - that might well applied to this part of the discussion?

Perhaps this:

• I understand that the average number of mink used for a coat is 40

FYI, I did not miss Marfran’s point; I was merely indicating that her cited passage from the CCC did not support her point. The one you cite, however, is relevant in that it addresses the moral and spiritual problems faced by the wealthy. Nonetheless, while it indicates a dangerous pitfall in the path of the wealthy, it does not require a heroic sacrifice of one’s wealth in order to be saved, and it certainly does not require a particular luxury – one that is amoral, not immoral – to be avoided.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Marfran]

Honestly, I don’t know enough about the process to debate it. But you’re dodging the issue:

***I ***am dodging the issue? You are participating in a thread that you are admittedly not familiar with the topic being discussed. How can you debate a topic when you are not familiar with it??? To have an honest debate, should you not familiarize yourself with the topic?

To address your emotional appeal…

FYI: Please point out any appeals that I have made to emotion. This is not my style. I try to have serious debates sans emotion. I say this, you counter with that, I present this, you present that, we each utilize supportive evidence, quotes, links etc. We each use logic, philosophy, ethics, religion, to make our cases. I am actually not emotional about this subject, nor specifically try to appeal to others’ emotions to sway an argument, so I find it ironic that you would suggest thus. Please supply the “appeal to emotion” or the emotional response that you refer to.

With regard to the topic at hand, however, I do not agree that we have a moral imperative to end the use of animal skins for clothing and other products.

Based on your ***thorough knowledge ***of the subject?

 

[severus68]

FYI, I did not miss Marfran’s point; I was merely indicating that her cited passage from the CCC did not support her point. The one you cite, however, is relevant in that it addresses the moral and spiritual problems faced by the wealthy. Nonetheless, while it indicates a dangerous pitfall in the path of the wealthy, it does not require a heroic sacrifice of one’s wealth in order to be saved, and it certainly does not require a particular luxury – one that is amoral, not immoral – to be avoided.

Peace,
Dante

Surely a luxury fur obtained by the suffering of animals would be aganst theachings of the Church against causing needless suffering.

 

[4elise]

Surely a luxury fur obtained by the suffering of animals would be aganst theachings of the Church against causing needless suffering.

This certainly makes sense to me - and I think there is a good point to be made for excess as well - I really find it difficult to understand that people own furs for any purpose other than flaunting wealth - and we do know that there are many things wrong with that.

 

[vz71]

Surely a luxury fur obtained by the suffering of animals would be aganst theachings of the Church against causing needless suffering.

As was the Pope’s fur?

 

[4elise]

As was the Pope’s fur?

That is true.

A fur that was made in the 1960’s is not causing any unnecessary suffering / deaths today - so we can’t wind the clock backward, *(and as I’ve said I understand the symbolism of the furs worn by the Holy Father - quite different than that of an individual who is trying to impress others with their wealth and status) *- but we can take action today and going forward.

 

[vz71]

That is true.

A fur that was made in the 1960’s is not causing any unnecessary suffering / deaths today - so we can’t wind the clock backward,

I understand that we cannot rewind the clock.
But the statement is made:

Surely a luxury fur obtained by the suffering of animals would be aganst theachings of the Church against causing needless suffering.

No time restriction made.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

***I ***am dodging the issue? You are participating in a thread that you are admittedly not familiar with the topic being discussed. How can you debate a topic when you are not familiar with it??? To have an honest debate, should you not familiarize yourself with the topic?

The only issue I am “dodging” is the debate over particular methods of raising and/or harvesting furs. The practices employed are not things with which I am familiar, so I do not feel competent to argue them. That does not, however, disqualify me from debating the practice of using fur, which is not inherently evil – in fact, it is amoral.

FYI: Please point out any appeals that I have made to emotion. This is not my style. I try to have serious debates sans emotion. I say this, you counter with that, I present this, you present that, we each utilize supportive evidence, quotes, links etc. We each use logic, philosophy, ethics, religion, to make our cases. I am actually not emotional about this subject, nor specifically try to appeal to others’ emotions to sway an argument, so I find it ironic that you would suggest thus. Please supply the “appeal to emotion” or the emotional response that you refer to.

Gladly. I refuted your interpretation of the CCC passage about the treatment of animals, and you responded with this:

So is it the rightful place of animals to be confined in a small cage for their entire life, then killed by anal electrocution or other method, to be then skinned, and made into luxury fur coats for us to wear on our backs?

This is not logic; it is a non sequitur. What makes it an appeal to emotion is not that it reveals your emotional state, but that it attempts to defeat your opponent’s argument by generating an emotional reaction.

Based on your ***thorough knowledge ***of the subject?

Again, as I pointed out, I avoid debating the elements of which I am ignorant. It is perfectly reasonable to debate the ethics of using furs; I am not debating the ethics of current methods.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That is true.

A fur that was made in the 1960’s is not causing any unnecessary suffering / deaths today - so we can’t wind the clock backward, *(and as I’ve said I understand the symbolism of the furs worn by the Holy Father - quite different than that of an individual who is trying to impress others with their wealth and status) *- but we can take action today and going forward.

Again, if it were wrong to wear fur, today 2009, the Pope would have left them in storage, or even have them burned.

I had posted a piece from the Fur Commission.

Fur Commission USA is a non-profit trade association representing 400 mink-farming families on over 300 farms in more than two dozen states. Through their cooperatives, North American Fur Auctions and American Legend, these farmers market 3 million of the world’s finest mink pelts valued at almost $200 million to manufacturers around the world. Over 400 fashion designers currently incorporate natural fiber furs in their collections.

Our volunteer board and committees work to ensure superior standards of animal husbandry through our own certification program, and to educate the public about responsible fur farming and the merits of fur.

 

[4elise]

I understand that we cannot rewind the clock.
But the statement is made:

No time restriction made.

What I’ve tried to point to in my understand is the ‘symbol’ of that fur - not on equal footing with those purchased today by individuals who spend money on an unnecessary luxury item - one that causes the unnecessary suffering/death of an animal.

Can you understand the distinction I am trying to draw?

 

[4elise]

Again, if it were wrong to wear fur, today 2009, the Pope would have left them in storage, or even have them burned.
.

I was glad to see - according to this source - that perhaps the animals do not suffer too much - but again this goes to the use of resources…

Anyway - I do appreciate that others come to a different conclusion, and do not doubt that they are good Catholics - this is just the understanding that I’ve come to.

Peace

[/QUOTE]

 

[vz71]

What I’ve tried to point to in my understand is the ‘symbol’ of that fur - not on equal footing with those purchased today by individuals who spend money on an unnecessary luxury item - one that causes the unnecessary suffering/death of an animal.

Can you understand the distinction I am trying to draw?

I understand the distinction you are attempting to draw.
However there are still no time constraints placed on the argument made by severus68.

Further, the knowledge of the origins of the fur the pope wears are not common knowledge, and thus prone to causing scandal. Unless there is nothing wrong then, now, or in the future.

 

[mmsiciliana]

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.

QUOTE]

Sorry, you are wrong. Artificial fabrics do not do better in keeping someone warm. I’ve worn both artificial and real fur and there is no substitute for real fur in keeping warm.

 

[mmsiciliana]

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?

I’ve worn both and real fur is definitely much superior to artificial fur in keeping someone warm.

 

[mmsiciliana]

But they are harvested cruelly!!! They are confined in tiny cages, not allowed to stretch their legs or move about, killed for their fur (often killed by **anal electrocution **so as to not damage their coat), the rest of their bodies disgarded…

Please do not buy into this propaganda. I was raised on a fur farm. The animals have plenty of room to move about and I’ve seen them stretched out like cats snoring on their backs in the sun. They are not killed by anal electrocution. They are gassed. The rest of their bodies are not discarded. They are purchased by rendering companies. The “animal rights” groups are huge money-making opportunities that foster a disregard for the law and a disregard for human life. Many years ago, I took an “animal rights” class at my local community college. The teacher distributed animal rights literature in which some people were auoted as not vaccinating their own children because the vaccines had originally been tested on animals. You also have the quotes from some of the animal rights leaders, such as Ingrid Newkirk or Peter Singer. One that comes immediately to mind is “A rat is a pig, is a dog, is a boy.”

 

[mmsiciliana]

We have a connection with animals. Animals have emotions too and can suffer. I have witnessed joy and fear in animals. Animals are feeling beings too. If a hunted animal does not feel fear or apprehension, it would just sit or stand there to be shot or blundgened to death.

An animal is not the same as a human. You may think you have an emotional connection with your pet, and some pets are amazingly intelligent. But the animal doesn’t flee because of fear of apprehension; it flees because of instinct. If you think it flees because of fear or apprehension, then every wild rabbit, small bird, mouse, gazelle, water buffalo, etc. are living their entire lives in fear because something is always looking to eat it.
I can also tell you that some animals will instinctively kill every prey animal they come across, not because they’re hungry, but because nature has given them the instinct to kill prey when they see it so that they have something to eat if prey is not readily available.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Well, according to the Bible, at least one animal was given the gift of human speech long enough to tell her owner exactly how she felt about the way he treated her!

Well, according to the Bible, we also know who was the first person to make animal skin garments for human beings…and I think you’ll be surprised at who it was…Look up Genesis 3:21.

 

[severus68]

An animal is not the same as a human. You may think you have an emotional connection with your pet, and some pets are amazingly intelligent. But the animal doesn’t flee because of fear of apprehension; it flees because of instinct. If you think it flees because of fear or apprehension, then every wild rabbit, small bird, mouse, gazelle, water buffalo, etc. are living their entire lives in fear because something is always looking to eat it.
I can also tell you that some animals will instinctively kill every prey animal they come across, not because they’re hungry, but because nature has given them the instinct to kill prey when they see it so that they have something to eat if prey is not readily available.

I have never said animals are the same ashuman beings. We do howeverhave a connecton with animals.We too have instincts and act on our instincts. if someone came towards me with a knife, my nstinct would be to run out of fear. A wild animal has instincts which are probably more honed than ours Animals feel fear and pain too.

With repect, I do not think I have an emotional connection with my pets, I know I do.

 

[mmsiciliana]

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.

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.

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.

In this country, many people have anthropomorphized animals due to movies like Bambi. In real life, animals are not like that. Look at the guy who went up to Alaska to be with his “friends,” the Grizzly bears.
Animals do feel pain, but they are incapable of using reason to fear pain and death. If an animal has fear issues, they are the same thing as Pavlov’s dogs’ responses to the bell–a learned response to a certain critera that has produced the same result time after time.
It is morally right to raise animals for their fur according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2417 specifically says animals can be used for clothing. BUT it would not be right to abuse those animals. They need proper food, water, bedding, space, etc., all of which it is also to the advantage of the farmer to provide because he will end up with a better quality pelt in the end. It is not to the advantage of a farmer to mistreat or cause premature death in his animals by not taking proper care of them.
By the way, many times, the love for animals can take away from the love we should have for other human beings. It’s sort of like the Dulia/Hyperdulia veneration we should have for Mary vs the other saints. We can “love” our pets, but we are commanded by Our Lord to love one another and to take care of those who are in need of food, water, shelter, clothing etc. as if they were Our Lord himself.