Ethics of Fur

[Marfran]

I am still waiting for an answer from those of you vegans who say fur is unethical. What do you think about vaccinations since the vaccines are cultured in chicken eggs?

I see that you are new. The idea of discussions in threads is to discuss, debate and share, and it is always helpful to have resources and links that aid in the discussion in addition to personal opinion. And yes, personal experience is highly valuable and offers insight and perspective. I would highly recommend approaching a thread discussion as one would approach a forensics debate. Here is the original OP–this is the topic we are discussing:

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.”)

We are not discussing eggs or vaccines, we are discussing the ethics of fur, specifically factory farmed fur gleaned from animals raised in captivity. I think that the ethics of eggs would be in a separate category, and does not seem to fit into this discussion.

It has been suggested that the procurement of animal fur serves no authentic human need, that fur procured in this manner is often for the making of luxury fashion garments, unlike the eggs that would be used in the making of vaccines.

If you see a connection between these two scenarios, please direct us and help us to see this.

FYI: If you have issue with the misspellings of other posters you might want to PM them. I do not believe there is a spellchecker here and we are all tolerant of one another in this regard. Please kindly forgive any misspellings that I have made!!!

 

[Marfran]

You seem to have this idea that mink, in the wild, run and play with each other. They do not. They are solitary animals. They only get together to breed and even then it looks like they are fighting each other. They have space to “run and frollick (sic)” in their cages because they are relatively small animals–smaller than cats, usually. That’s why it takes 40 of them for a coat. It takes fewer furs for a large animal. Ermines are one of the smallest animals, by the way.

Actually, the idea is that the mink ***do not ***purposefully volunteer to breed in captivity in order to become luxury fashion garments. Humans purposefully BREED these animals for FASHION, and no other HIGHER purpose. Is this reason enough??? HIGH COUTURE???

I hope I have not made any misspellings!!!

 

[mmsiciliana]

I see that you are new. The idea of discussions in threads is to discuss, debate and share, and it is always helpful to have resources and links that aid in the discussion in addition to personal opinion. And yes, personal experience is highly valuable and offers insight and perspective. I would highly recommend approaching a thread discussion as one would approach a forensics debate. Here is the original OP–this is the topic we are discussing:

We are not discussing eggs or vaccines, we are discussing the ethics of fur, specifically factory farmed fur gleaned from animals raised in captivity. I think that the ethics of eggs would be in a separate category, and does not seem to fit into this discussion.

It has been suggested that the procurement of animal fur serves no authentic human need, that fur procured in this manner is often for the making of luxury fashion garments, unlike the eggs that would be used in the making of vaccines.

If you see a connection between these two scenarios, please direct us and help us to see this.

FYI: If you have issue with the misspellings of other posters you might want to PM them. I do not believe there is a spellchecker here and we are all tolerant of one another in this regard. Please forgive any misspellings that I have made!!!

First of all, I don’t have “issues” with the misspellings of other posters, but I will use the word “sic” after someone else’s misspelling because it’s not my word. Secondly, I am not “new.” I’ve been registered on this site almost 2 years longer than you have. I’ve been using the internet and responding to other people’s posts long before the Catholic Answers Forum even existed. I read Karl Keating’s book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, before it was a book–when it was only articles he wrote for a series in a newspaper. I’ve subscribed to This Rock magazine since its inception as a newsletter.

That being said, the tolerance that I would like to see, and the charity, for that matter, would be the tolerance and charity that admits that those who choose to eat meat or wear fur are acting in a moral, therefore, ethical way according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and that you are behaving in a calumnious manner if you continue to say that animals raised for their fur are killed inhumanely

 

[mmsiciliana]

Actually, the idea is that the mink ***do not ***purposefully volunteer to breed in captivity in order to become luxury fashion garments. Humans purposefully BREED these animals for FASHION, and no other HIGHER purpose. Is this reason enough??? HIGH COUTURE???

I hope I have not made any misspellings!!!

Marfran, we put a male and a female in the same cage. Sometimes they breed. Sometimes they don’t. We don’t practice artifical insemination and the animal is never forcibly bred, so, you see, it really is their choice whether to breed or not.

Also, Fur is not just beautiful, it’s warm. Much warmer than any “faux” fur, or cotton, or hemp.

 

[4elise]

I don’t think so. With people who speak different languages, I think you would get a puzzled look with the words in their own language, What are you talking about?. The dog doesn’t know that it doesn’t know what you’re talking about.

I was just trying to say that the dog obviously didn’t know what was being said BUT reacted to tone, animation, facial expressions of the individual speaking ----

I’ve lived in another country where I really struggled with language and had to go on similar (name removed by moderator)ut to get an idea what someone was trying to communicate - however if they had been saying that they wanted to hurt me, while smiling and speaking sweetly (as some sad game) I would have only the tone and facial expression to react to… does that make sense?

 

[4elise]

We don’t call what we’re doing “hunting.” We call it “farming.” And if someone goes on a canned hunt, it’s possible for the hunter to miss killing the prey, but the hunter could still wound the “prey” which doesn’t know enough to stay away from the hunter. Then the prey could endure needless suffering. On the farm, they’re euthanized quickly and appropriately.

Sorry if I missed the point - you said:
Secondly, have you ever been hunting? I have. Not “canned” hunting–I agree with you that is wrong. And so would any real hunter because in a canned hunt, you pay your money and they let an animal that has been raised by human beings and is used to human beings out of a cage so the hunter who paid the money can shoot it. And it doesn’t run away from the hunter, becaue it has learned not to be afraid of human beings, so it is a “sitting duck.”

What I was asking and trying to understand was why you see there is a difference between a canned hunt - which you acknowledge as wrong - animal raised to be killed by someone who pays to do so - and raising animals for furs that someone pays for??

The animals raised for fur are surely ‘sitting ducks’ - no option to get away I would guess.

 

[4elise]

Very good. But the topic of this discussion is whether fur ranching is ethical. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is.

And that was what I was trying to share - that my understanding of the teaching is that fur - given that it is not NEEDED - is then not supported by the teaching of the Church.

I know that other good people of faith have come to a different conclusion.

 

[4elise]

How about some of the other images I’ve seen…like mothers who have eaten their babies, (they’re called “kits”) or have left them outside until they are ice cold. Then we pick them up, put them in our hands, blow on them, and sometimes, when they are warmed back up, they start moving again and the little creature you thought was dead is actually alive. Then you have to find another “home” for that kit, and sometimes its brothers and sisters, too. So you look for another mom who has between 1-3 kits and is taking good care of them and you put them there.

Or how about the image of a mink that’s managed to get into the chicken or duck pen and has killed every single bird in one night (over 50 of them) and is lying there, gorged, surrounded by dead birds?

Or how about the image of the dead bird lying in the mink cage that the mink grabbed by its feet and dragged into its cage?

Or how about the runt of the litter that’s covered with bites and sores from its brothers and sisters and is missing limbs, or part of its tail and has to be taken out before they kill it, if it isn’t already dead?

No… those are sad and disturbing images - that reinforce not keeping these animals for fur IMHO.

 

[4elise]

I am still waiting for an answer from those of you vegans who say fur is unethical. What do you think about vaccinations since the vaccines are cultured in chicken eggs?

Sorry… didn’t know you were waiting.

I know some vegans do not use vaccinations because of this.
I have resigned myself to the fact that it is completely impossible to be 100% vegan - and I try do to do the best I can - if I can get the vaccine and it would keep me from getting ill, or spreading illness - then I will get it - this is one of the areas that I make exception.

For additional clarity if you would like – as a vegan another place is when I travel for work and someone in a village in Guatemala offers me chicken soup - I say thank you and eat it - or in Cameroon a piece of goat - I say thank you and eat it - or grasshoppers in Uganda, yup - thank you and eat it - FYI fried they taste like popcorn - and that is what I tell myself it is!

 

[mmsiciliana]

Originally Posted by mmsiciliana
How about some of the other images I’ve seen…like mothers who have eaten their babies, (they’re called “kits”) or have left them outside until they are ice cold. Then we pick them up, put them in our hands, blow on them, and sometimes, when they are warmed back up, they start moving again and the little creature you thought was dead is actually alive. Then you have to find another “home” for that kit, and sometimes its brothers and sisters, too. So you look for another mom who has between 1-3 kits and is taking good care of them and you put them there.

Or how about the image of a mink that’s managed to get into the chicken or duck pen and has killed every single bird in one night (over 50 of them) and is lying there, gorged, surrounded by dead birds?

Or how about the image of the dead bird lying in the mink cage that the mink grabbed by its feet and dragged into its cage?

Or how about the runt of the litter that’s covered with bites and sores from its brothers and sisters and is missing limbs, or part of its tail and has to be taken out before they kill it, if it isn’t already dead?

No… those are sad and disturbing images - that reinforce not keeping these animals for fur IMHO.

Do you think the mink that lives in the wild and gets into the chicken coop acts any differently? No.

Do you think a mink that lives in the wild and gets ahold of a bird acts any differently? No.

Do you think a mink that lives in the wild and is the runt of the litter is not picked on by the bigger siblings. No again. But at least if it’s raised on a farm, it has the chance to be taken away from the bullies before they kill it.

Do you think a mink that lives in the wild will never eat its young? No.

Do you think a mink that lives in the wild will always take care of its young? No. But at least if it’s raised on a farm, we have the chance to rescue the frozen babies and place them with another mother who will take care of it.

Animals don’t “love” each other. I have several pets who regularly try to beat each other up, which horrifies me, but it’s natural to them.

 

[severus68]

No one does. Not even the dogs.

They can only communicate in the broadest possible terms.
Language is beyond them. As are higher thinking and reasoning, and human emotions.

And Pavlov taught a dog to drool when he rang a bell.

No matter the complexity of the learned behavior, it is still does not raise animals to any other status.

Many humans drool at the sight of food especially their favourite:

 

[mmsiciliana]

Sorry… didn’t know you were waiting.

I know some vegans do not use vaccinations because of this.
I have resigned myself to the fact that it is completely impossible to be 100% vegan - and I try do to do the best I can - if I can get the vaccine and it would keep me from getting ill, or spreading illness - then I will get it - this is one of the areas that I make exception.

For additional clarity if you would like – as a vegan another place is when I travel for work and someone in a village in Guatemala offers me chicken soup - I say thank you and eat it - or in Cameroon a piece of goat - I say thank you and eat it - or grasshoppers in Uganda, yup - thank you and eat it - FYI fried they taste like popcorn - and that is what I tell myself it is!

You’re right–it is completely impossible to be 100% vegan and you have made the choices that you believe are appropriate for you. Please allow us the same latitude and admit that using animals for meat or fur is moral, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, therefore, it is ethical (a word I hate, by the way, because it seems to me to be a way of “teaching” morality without using any morals…).

 

[severus68]

ok so nobody NEEDS the coat. understandable. but to the people who raise the animals for the hides, it’s their livelyhood. their families depend on that income.

again I ask you what difference does it make, to the animal, if he is killed for sport, for meat, for fur, for horns… whatever?! I mean, his end game is the same no matter what!

The point is that it would be needless. People diversify, change jobs all the time. Whalers must have taken other jobs when whaling was banned/restricted, for example. We are not asking anyone to starve. There can be a gradual phasing out.

 

[severus68]

But some people might like to have a fur coat. I have friends who have furs. i don’t have one…but maybe one day I might like one.

The point is that is not a need but a desire so causing sufferng for a needless desire is causing uneccessary suffering.

 

[severus68]

Do lions hunt? Yes.

Do they have the “consent of their prey”? No.

That’s why “hunters” are called “hunters.” You tried to make it sound if the hunter has an “unfair” advantage. I pointed out that hunting is much harder than you have made it sound.

We are discussing the actions of “superior” human beings madein the image of God. Tthis thead is about te Ethics of Fur.

 

[severus68]

Yes, mistreatment would cause an inferior product, and what farmer would want that? Yes, over the years, some farmers have mistreated their animals, but so have some pet owners, etc. Of course, PETA is in favor of banning pet ownership, too, but most people who have pets don’t agree with PETA on that point.

One person in Peta and we are off topic.

 

[just_me_1]

What about people who work in cigarette manufacture?? Should we continue to manufacture cigarettes so that people don’t lose jobs? What about the manufacture of an antiquated product?? People have to find work elsewhere. Technology is always changing, industries are always changing–when one door closes another opens. Arguing to continue a cruel industry for a luxury product because there are jobs there, is not good enough reason to let it continue.

We are told in the CCC to treat animals kindly and not to cause them to suffer or die needlessly. We are to look to saints like St. Francis and St. Phillip and consider how they treated animals. It is against human dignity to to be cruel, and that includes cruelty to animals. Killing for sport, is killing not for need of food, or conservation. It is killing for the enjoyment of a game, for reasons of ego. Many species of animals have faced extinction because of human desire and want that does not arise from any authentic need.

huh? cigarettes are illegal now? why wouldn’t they be produced? it’s still a free (ish) country… isn’t it? as long as there is a demand, there will be production. and people still smoke.

anyways, my point is falling on deaf ears. why bother.

 

[just_me_1]

But some people might like to have a fur coat. I have friends who have furs. i don’t have one…but maybe one day I might like one.

I’m sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic, I have no problem with fur. actually I prefer leather but…

 

[just_me_1]

The point is that it would be needless. People diversify, change jobs all the time. Whalers must have taken other jobs when whaling was banned/restricted, for example. We are not asking anyone to starve. There can be a gradual phasing out.

why? why phase something out purposfully just because some people see it as wrong?
we all know how well it’s working on the abortion debate!

 

[mmsiciliana]

The point is that it would be needless. People diversify, change jobs all the time. Whalers must have taken other jobs when whaling was banned/restricted, for example. We are not asking anyone to starve. There can be a gradual phasing out.

Why would anyone need to “phase out”? The Church teaches it is not immoral to use animals for food or clothing. Period. Whaling was restricted because the whales were endangered, not because it is morally wrong to hunt whales. Fur farmed animals are not endangered.