Ethics of Fur

[4elise]

No doubt you are an ‘animal-rights’ activeist or sympathiser. Anyone who believes animals have rights has to be ‘looney’ for no sane person could actually believe this.
The thread questioned mink farming on ethical grounds. That is the debate. Ethics are based on morals and morality is determined by God. If God created fur for man’s use and benefit then the etics debate is over.

Now I see it is the ‘need’ or not that determines ethics. Well there are thousands who feel the ‘need’ to have and wear a fur coat. So, that is the end to the ‘need’ ethics, no?

You mentioned that you hadn’t read the thread, so please allow me to post the section of the CCC the references animals

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.194 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.195

2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.196 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.197 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.

Even those of us ‘loonies’ acknowledge that the CCC provides that it is legitmate to use animals for food and or clothing - but it is the next section - 2418 where I find we have the greatest disagreement with others how have a ‘need’ ** It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. ** -

I (and others) do not NEED meat, dairy, eggs, fish, poultry, fur, leather — therefore it is contrary to my dignity as a human to cause an animal to suffer or die to meet a non need.

If there is something that can be substituted for an animal product IMHO it is more in keeping with this teaching.

 

[4elise]

And I think wanting to wear a dead animal on your back is looney. (And wanting to wear 40 dead animals on your back is even loonier.) What mixed up values.

I am still confused about the justification?
When there is a non animal source to meet a need - given the teaching of the CCC - it seems like such a simple choice.

 

[creationlover]

As I said before, morality is timeless.

Technology is irrelevent. As is time.
Sin always will be sin.

Attempting to sway morality based upon changing times are circumstance is moral relativity.

Help me understand you. I agree - sin is always sin. Are you then saying that some institutions, such as slavery and the allowance to marry multiple wives (as was done in the Old Testament) are still okay?

I am not saying wearing fur is a “sin”, but as I can see, there seems to be no real strong justification for it except in rare cases. The military, for example, train in some of the coldest areas in the world but to my knowledge, don’t have fur uniform items.

 

[Marfran]

'What is cruelty? It is something Humans only are capable of…Determining cruelty also depends on the ‘minds’ of animals. Ever see antelopes going back to graze after one of them gets caught by lions. No bother. this proves they do not ‘think’ in a manner that recognises cruelty. But when a man puts a dog to live in a barrel as I have seen (and stopped) that is cruelty no matter what the dog is thinking.

Yes, I think that cruelty*** is ***something that only humans are capable of. And only humans are capable of compassion and mercy.

If we can live easily without using animals, especially in this situation–using them for their fur–when we do not have to–wouldn’t that be the better choice???

 

[4elise]

They are warm, for one. My friend, who used her coat for 10 years, said nothing is warmer. They are not dyed, they are matched. The minks are bred for color, also.

Bottom line is:

There are no qualifiers mentioned above. There is no mention of what type of animal can be used for clothing, There is no mention of one type of animal being suitable for clothing but not others. As I posted prior, and as mmsiciliana has also state, the way minks are treated is humane. Some might find it distasteful, and be against it for personal reasons. I personally do not like goat meat. Many people do.

I’ve come to a different bottom line, also from the CCC

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

 

[Marfran]

I am not saying wearing fur is a “sin”, but as I can see, there seems to be **no real strong justification for it **except in rare cases. The military, for example, train in some of the coldest areas in the world but to my knowledge, don’t have fur uniform items.

Yes, exactly. And why doesn’t the military wear fur if it is so warm???

 

[Marfran]

I’ve come to a different bottom line, also from the CCC
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

After all these threads I am really feeling what this statement of the CCC means. Contrary to human dignity… And I don’t know if I can adequately articulate this concept in other words…I think many may not feel the full impact of just what this means.

Animals are not people–animals are not equal to people–but we are responsible for these lesser creations of God–and to cause them harm, cause them to suffer, for a whim, a vanity, an earthly desire, harms us even more than it harms them. For us to choose a fur coat over kindness makes US less.

 

[4elise]

You do not get the point of the argument. Because Jesus did something, it is not morally wrong. You can’t switch it around obviously.

I’ll bet he didn’t condemn people wearing them either.

Do you think that a ‘luxury’ mink coat - not to keep one warm - only because one ‘wants’ it can be justified?

 

[4elise]

Going back to the original post…

We heard from 2 people that have had firsthand experience with “factory” fur farms, and from what they have said, it is not cruel and unethical.

Actually one insisted that theirs wasn’t a ‘factory’ farm.

 

[4elise]

Furs don’t zip. And they are designed so that you can close them all the way up to the neck. But they don’t have to be worn that way all the time. And you don’t need “re-inforced cuffs that cling to the body” when you’re wearing a fur. You want cuffs that are open enough so that your gloves can slide under the cuffs.

My muskrat coat is dyed navy blue. It’s beautiful. But a good mink coat that’s made properly with matched pelts doesn’t need to be dyed, unless the consumer wanted a funky color like navy blue or orange…

And finally, what’s wrong with wanting to look good? That’s the purpose of “fashion”, correct?

I’d like to look at the last question… I don’t think there is anything wrong in trying to be healthy, dress appropriately… but see that this is one of the points where it can be easy to slip into vanity - and where I see a fashion fur fitting into the discussion - if it is only about ‘looking good’ then certainly a faux fur would do? Unless it is more than ‘looking’ good and onto trying to impress with the cost of what one is wearing?

 

[4elise]

“Beauty without Cruelty”. Great phrase. True beauty is nothing more than harmony with God and creation; rather it be a harmonic piece of music, a mesmerizing painting or whatever. Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering? I am not trying to be ugly, but I am reminded of Proverbs 11:22 - Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman with a rebellious disposition". Beauty is not just “looks” it is the inner character. True beauty will be in harmony with all of God’s creation.

By the way, when Jesus gave the fish to the disciples, yes I admit, he condoned the eating of animals (the point was to prove He was resurrected in the flesh, not to say, meat eating is okay). Also during that time, He allowed slavery to go on. He didn’t condemn slavery and neither did the Apostle Paul at that time. But we don’t allow it to continue, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. IF animals are in the eschaton, will we eat them? Will we wear their skins in praise of His glory?? I think not. We pursue the highest call He calls us to… He did say, “Behold, I make all things new”… Slavery was allowed during his resurrected state, just as the death penalty is allowed today but certainly not necessary in most situations. Again, shouldn’t we seek the highest of all that is good and pure? I believe we should seek to bring heaven to earth as much as possible, as we pray in the Our Father…

Very well said.

 

[Indyann]

Yes, exactly. And why doesn’t the military wear fur if it is so warm???

They did in Korea.

olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_hat_pile.php

Constructed of olive drab Shade #7 cotton poplin with a wool alpaca lining, the M1951 Pile Cap was both warm and comfortable. The ear flaps could easily be pulled down over the back and sides of the head for extra protection from cold or tied up over the crown of the cap when not needed. The front visor also could be folded down to provide glare protection, but was more often than not worn up with the wearer’s rank insignia pinned through it (officers) or stenciled on (non-coms).

Probably not much need in Viet Nam or the Gulf.

 

[severus68]

They did in Korea.

olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_hat_pile.php

Constructed of olive drab Shade #7 cotton poplin with a wool alpaca lining, the M1951 Pile Cap was both warm and comfortable. The ear flaps could easily be pulled down over the back and sides of the head for extra protection from cold or tied up over the crown of the cap when not needed. The front visor also could be folded down to provide glare protection, but was more often than not worn up with the wearer’s rank insignia pinned through it (officers) or stenciled on (non-coms).

Probably not much need in Viet Nam or the Gulf.

Did you say wool?

 

[Indyann]

Did you say wool?

ALPACA.

Picture of parka with wolf fur.

olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_parka.php

 

[4elise]

They did in Korea.

olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_hat_pile.php

Constructed of olive drab Shade #7 cotton poplin with a wool alpaca lining, the M1951 Pile Cap was both warm and comfortable. The ear flaps could easily be pulled down over the back and sides of the head for extra protection from cold or tied up over the crown of the cap when not needed. The front visor also could be folded down to provide glare protection, but was more often than not worn up with the wearer’s rank insignia pinned through it (officers) or stenciled on (non-coms).

Probably not much need in Viet Nam or the Gulf.

From the link it notes that the wolf fur was phased out and replaced with synthetic - “but after wolf fur was phased out, it became the Hood, Winter, W/Synthetic Fur Ruff” - so apparently when the upgraded it the army went to synthetic…

 

[severus68]

ALPACA.

Picture of parka with wolf fur.

olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_parka.php

Alpaca wool is not fur. Read the article but will read it again as seemed to have missed the wolf fur bit. Appears they were describing some US army garb in the Korean war. Wasn’t that in the 1950s?

 

[Indyann]

Alpaca wool is not fur. Read the article but will read it again as seemed to have missed the wolf fur bit. Appears they were describing some US army garb in the Korean war. Wasn’t that in the 1950s?

Yes, I guess you did miss the “wolf fur bit”.

Yes the Korean war was in the 50’s.

No matter, our military in Afghanistan will be getting “fur ruffs” too.

nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/January/Pages/ArmySelects2745.aspx

People should really do their homework before making statements.

Sorry about the wool, but I thought you were one who was against wool too. Oh, yeh that was leather! The military uses lots of leather, too.

 

[severus68]

Yes, I guess you did miss the “wolf fur bit”.

Yes the Korean war was in the 50’s.

No matter, our military in Afghanistan will be getting “fur ruffs” too.

nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/January/Pages/ArmySelects2745.aspx

People should really do their homework before making statements.

Sorry about the wool, but I thought you were one who was against wool too. Oh, yeh that was leather! The military uses lots of leather, too.

This thread is about the ethics of fur, so lets not get issues confused.

 

[severus68]

Yes, I guess you did miss the “wolf fur bit”.

Yes the Korean war was in the 50’s.

No matter, our military in Afghanistan will be getting “fur ruffs” too.

nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/January/Pages/ArmySelects2745.aspx

People should really do their homework before making statements.

Sorry about the wool, but I thought you were one who was against wool too. Oh, yeh that was leather! The military uses lots of leather, too.

Very interesting article. All the Gen III garb appears to be polyester or polyester blends and there is reference to “mimicking fur”. Those fur ruffs are most likey to be faux fur. My dauhter has a winter coat with a furry ruff to the hood. Certainly no animal died in its making.

 

[Indyann]

This thread is about the ethics of fur, so lets not get issues confused.

I am not the one who made the statement about the military using fur.