Ethics of Fur

[empacae]

Whoops! Yes it was posted on the wrong thread. I had multiple windows open at the time.

But I don’t think that wearing leather is immoral, an most times quite practical, in lieu of teflon, carbon fiber, kevlar clothing.

:twocents:
emp

 

[Marfran]

Whoops! Yes it was posted on the wrong thread. I had multiple windows open at the time.

But I don’t think that wearing leather is immoral, an most times quite practical, in lieu of teflon, carbon fiber, kevlar clothing.

:twocents:
emp

You are still on the wrong thread! This thread is about the ethics of fur, specifically from captive animals on factory farms, e.g., mink and fox, etc.

 

[bigfootbob]

You are still on the wrong thread! This thread is about the ethics of fur, specifically from captive animals on factory farms, e.g., mink and fox, etc.

Leather is fur without the hair.

 

[vz71]

You are still on the wrong thread! This thread is about the ethics of fur, specifically from captive animals on factory farms, e.g., mink and fox, etc.

Leather is fur with the hair removed.

 

[bigfootbob]

Leather is fur with the hair removed.

Is it just me, or is there an echo in here? (Oh well, as they say, great minds think alike)

 

[Marfran]

Leather is fur without the hair.

Leather is a ***by-product ***of the meat industry. In captive fur farming, animals are raised specifically for their fur–that IS the point of this discussion. The fur, in most cases, is a LUXURY item and is very expensive. We have many alternatives to fur and the point of the discussion is whether we can justify causing animals to suffer and die for a LUXURY MINK/FOX coat. The average MINK coat requires the pelts of 40 animals.

 

[vz71]

Is it just me, or is there an echo in here? (Oh well, as they say, great minds think alike)

I was two minutes slow on the draw.

 

[vz71]

Leather is a ***by-product ***of the meat industry. In captive fur farming, animals are raised specifically for their fur–that IS the point of this discussion.

Well, without knowing of any animals raised for the leather, I’ll concede that point for now.

The fur, in most cases, is a LUXURY item and is very expensive.

I like that, you concede that the luxury is not always the case.
You are quite right.
Fur can be luxury, or necessity.

We have many alternatives to fur and the point of the discussion is whether we can justify causing animals to suffer and die for a LUXURY MINK/FOX coat.

Wait a second here.
You just got finished telling us fur is not always a luxury, and now you claim otherwise. My eyballs are spinning trying to keep up.

The average MINK coat requires the pelts of 40 animals.

They are small animals. So what?

 

[Marfran]

I like that, you concede that the luxury is not always the case.
You are quite right.
Fur can be luxury, or necessity.

Wait a second here.
You just got finished telling us fur is not always a luxury, and now you claim otherwise. My eyballs are spinning trying to keep up.
They are small animals. So what?

I think it would be very difficult to cite a case for the ***necessity ***of fur in our modern industrialized society (2009), and if you were to find an example of an indigenous people who did not have access to other materials for clothing, not likely that they would be getting mink or fox fur from an American or European fur farm.

Fur is a LUXURY, and some sources are MORE expensive than others. You can use a pelt from your own hunting, however this thread is more specifically about ***factory ***fur farms.

 

[vz71]

The fur, in most cases, is a LUXURY item and is very expensive.

Fur is a LUXURY, and some sources are MORE expensive than others.

 

[bigfootbob]

Leather is a ***by-product ***of the meat industry.

You are pretty much right, I guess. The only animal that I can think of that is raised for leather is the chamois.

 

[Marfran]

And the point you are trying to make is what? You have NO PROBLEM with fur farms? You have no problem with animals killed for their fur? You have no problem with LUXURY items? You distinguish between the expense of different furs? You do not distinguish between fur from a hunted animal that was killed for food, or other purpose, and fur from a fur farm?

 

[vz71]

And the point you are trying to make is what?

The point was that I had just quoted you saying two mutually exclusive things.
Both quotes cannot be true at the same time.
One of them must be untrue.

You are losing credibility.

 

[Marfran]

The point was that I had just quoted you saying two mutually exclusive things.
Both quotes cannot be true at the same time.
One of them must be untrue.

You are losing credibility.

You are nitpicking semantics.

The fur is a LUXURY item and is very expensive.

and I add: in most cases for you are sure to argue that **all **fur is NOT very expensive. Most fur from fur farms is, in most cases, for a very expensive luxury item, though we have discussed cheaper furs from China.

The fur, (in most cases), is a LUXURY item and is very expensive.

Fur is a LUXURY, and some sources are MORE expensive than others.

So vz71: You have no problem with animals raised in captivity, living in tiny cages all their lives who are killed and made into expensive coats? (Yes, I am talking about the expensive ones–not the inexpensive Chinese ones–I am talking about the mink and fox fur coats.)

 

[vz71]

You are nitpicking semantics.

No, I am observing a target that keeps moving.

And I have no issue with the responsible use of animals.

 

[vz71]

You are nitpicking semantics.

And you are doing it again.
Looks at the following…

The fur is a LUXURY item and is very expensive.

OK, all fur is expensive and a luxury.

The fur, (in most cases), is a LUXURY item and is very expensive.

Well, *Most *of the time.

(Yes, I am talking about the expensive ones–not the inexpensive Chinese ones–I am talking about the mink and fox fur coats.)

OK, OK, there is cheap fur out there.

How about you make up your mind where you want to go and stick with it.

 

[Marfran]

How about you make up your mind where you want to go and stick with it.

I want to go to to the “fur farm.” The American or European “fur farm” that keeps animals captive in tiny cages and then kills them for fur coats, etc. Not the hunter who turns his “kill pelt” into a coat–he’s utilizing everything from his kill. Animals ***specifically raised ***to be killed for luxury fur–and in this country (USA) it’s going to be expensive (many dollars), unless the company is going out of business and liquidating everything.

So I get it–you don’t think that there is anything wrong with it. The animals, their lives do not matter, they are commodities, not living beings. It doesn’t matter what they are killed for, what they suffer for. It doesn’t matter if they are food, or luxury apparel. It doesn’t matter if their pelts are worn for vanity, or as a status symbol of wealth. There is no difference between the Eskimo of the 19th century wearing fur and animal pelt to keep warm, or the wealthy woman of 2009 who wears her fur on a 60 degree day as she strolls down Rodeo Drive.

 

[mmsiciliana]

So vz71: You have no problem with animals raised in captivity, living in tiny cages all their lives who are killed and made into expensive coats? (Yes, I am talking about the expensive ones–not the inexpensive Chinese ones–I am talking about the mink and fox fur coats.)

I’m not vz71, but I have no problem with animals raised in captivity, living in cages all their lives who are killed and made into expensive coats. And, yes, I am talking about the expensive ones!

 

[vz71]

I want to go to to the “fur farm.” The American or European “fur farm” that keeps animals captive in tiny cages and then kills them for fur coats, etc.

This has been addressed already in this thread.
I see nothing wrong with the cages, or their size. For the most part it is for their own protection as well as the health and benefit of the other animals.
You are starting to remind me of the PETA group that raided a fur farm to free all of the minks.
The minks were all dead by morning.

Animals ***specifically raised ***to be killed for luxury fur–and in this country (USA) it’s going to be expensive (many dollars), unless the company is going out of business and liquidating everything.

We raise animals for food. Why not raise them for clothing as well?
We are afforded that right by God.

So I get it–you don’t think that there is anything wrong with it.

Wearing fur? No.

The animals, their lives do not matter, they are commodities, not living beings.

They are in fact living beings. Their lives do matter, they are a precious commodity and should be well cared for to suit our need.

It doesn’t matter what they are killed for, what they suffer for. It doesn’t matter if they are food, or luxury apparel.

No, it doesn’t. They were raised for a specific purpose, and are fulfilling that need.
The only constraints are that the suffering be minimal to fulfill the need.

It doesn’t matter if their pelts are worn for vanity, or as a status symbol of wealth. There is no difference between the Eskimo of the 19th century wearing fur and animal pelt to keep warm, or the wealthy woman of 2009 who wears her fur on a 60 degree day as she strolls down Rodeo Drive.

Now that is just plain silly.

 

[4elise]

I’m not vz71, but I have no problem with animals raised in captivity, living in cages all their lives who are killed and made into expensive coats. And, yes, I am talking about the expensive ones!

understandable since this is the business your family was engaged in while you grew up -

so the animals raised and used for expensive coats does not give you pause, but I think you and I have discussed the issue of resources previously - do you think it is justifiable for an individual to use their resources this way when a less expensive (fur free) means can meet that need?

As Catholics I think we are always called to strive for balance - looking at how our needs can be met with our resources so we can use our resources to help others. A young family may opt to spend more on a bigger car then they would have when they were single, but they have investigated the safety ratings of cars and find that this extra expense for the car and fuel is justified to keep their family safe - they may have a choice then between one that meets their needs and one that cost an extra $20,000 - to spend the extra money IMHO is something to be considered carefully - why is there value of brand - all things being equal - except to impress?

I do not want to start a discussion off topic about cars but just use this as an example to make a point - when ones needs can be met with something less expensive and with something that does not cause the an animal to suffer or die - than that would be preferential in my eyes given the CCC:

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

And further teaches about our own resources:

2444 “The Church’s love for the poor . . . is a part of her constant tradition.” This love is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus, and of his concern for the poor.234 Love for the poor is even one of the motives for the duty of working so as to "be able to give to those in need."235 It extends not only to material poverty but also to the many forms of cultural and religious poverty.236

2445** Love for the poor is incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use:**

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man; he does not resist you.237

2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."238 “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”:239

Given all this - if I spend $5000 on a fur coat when a $500 synthetic coat would meet the need to keep warm - am I using resources properly?