Obviously, in the past, there was no choice, our ancestors had to clothe themselves in quite a challenging environment and there were few options if you lived in the cooler climes. In the more recent past, perhaps we can forgive a fashion born out of ignorance rather than malice and cruelty. Today there is simply no excuse. It's so wrong, I can hardly believe there is a need to even ask the question and I can't believe there's opinions over on the other side. I am dismayed.
Would it be wrong for a serial killer to skin people to wear their skin? I bet you would care then. The fur industry is a cruel and inhumane place for animals where they suffer before they are skinned alive and left to die. If there are laws against animal cruelty towards pets, there should be laws against animal cruelty at fur farms.
All you have to do is read the defense's statements to see that it is something only stupid people do. Watch "Earthlings" and I guarantee you won't defend fur-wearing, or leather-wearing, or meat-eating. Beyond the ethics, today there are so very many high-tech man made fabrics that can keep a person far warmer than another animal's fur ever could. As for fashion, no one looks worse than people who wear fur. All I can think of is, that person obviously is missing part of their brain and doesn't care about animal suffering, therefore they are ugly and make bad choices. And I am a fashion editor. So there.
I wish people would read a little, watch a video or a documentary - EDUCATE yourselves. These animals are tortured beyond belief. They live an awful life before they are eventually skinned alive. Unless you have zero compassion for all beings (like most of the people to the right of this page) it is absolutely unethical to wear fur.
I can understand that the pelts of some animals are used if they are also being used for subsistence but to kill an innocent animal just for fashion is unethical! It is unfair to those who are farmed and they live in harsh conditions and are often abused. This practice is inhumane.
Alright I believe both sides are extremists. The comments just... Wow. They're all very immature. This is what you sound like:
Pro: awmg animals are plants. Kill them all and drink their blood.
Con: you're like cruella de vill. Fir wearers should die because theyu wear fur. I wish death on you even though technically they're life and it contradicts my cause.
Here's what you guys should be saying:
I don't think it is particularly socially accepted and has a negative social stigma. The methods of the fur extraction should be heavily regulated so it isn't a sacrifice for superficial reasons. We should use all parts of the animals we eat. Judging someone for wearing fur is ignorant because you don't know how they got the fur. It could have been their grandmothers or something that was eaten and 100% utilized. Not wearing it all together would be a complete and total waste of a damage that has already been done.
Personally speaking: I think its incredibly creepy to wear fur. So I don't personally wear it. I'm not a vegan or anything. I'm one of those people who can't eat meat if it resembles the animal. Wearing a coat that resembles the animal is the same for me. I have two fluffy Pomeranians that have such luxurious coats, whenever I see a coat I think of my dogs and cringe. I know it's different but I can't help it. Fluffy cute animals... Can't do it. I have a hard time with leather too because cows are cute in their own little way. I live in California. If you wear fur here it isn't because you're cold it's because of fashion. That sort of character should be questioned. When I was little my nana had a lamb rug. I didn't know it was for a long time. But when I was told I cringed and didn't sit on it ever again.
So I lean more towards yes. But the extremist comments on both sides makes me wish there was a depends option.
:: THE CRUELTY OF FUR TRAPPING ::
Approximately 10 million animals are trapped and killed worldwide each year for fur. Animals caught in traps suffer immensely while waiting for the trapper to come and kill them. In the U.S., trappers are licensed by state agencies, just as hunters are. Beavers, raccoon, opossums, muskrats, skunks, and foxes are among the animals targeted by trappers. Many states require the traps to be tagged with the trapper’s identifying information and require trappers to check their traps once a day, but even a short period of time with a limb caught in a leg hold trap is excruciating. Animals will chew off their own limbs to escape the traps. Several U.S. states and many countries have banned the steel-jawed leg hold trap, which is notorious for its cruelty. Trappers now get around this ban by using other types of traps, including snare traps, conibear traps or leg hold traps with a thin layer of padding added. Once the trapper finds the captured animal, if the animal is still alive, the trapper will usually club or stomp the animal to death. Shooting is not as popular because the trapper would risk damaging the pelt.
:: Unintended Victims ::
Another problem with any kind of trap is the lack of discrimination. For every intended victim of the traps, there are 2 to 10 unintended victims: birds, porcupines, deer, cats, dogs and other animals are caught, maimed and killed in traps. Even animals listed under the Endangered Species Act are caught and killed. In the industry, these unintended victims are referred to as “trash” animals. There have also been cases where children were caught in these traps.
:: The Cruelty of Fur Farms ::
Approximately 30 million animals are raised in cages and killed worldwide for fur every year. Minks are the animals most commonly raised on fur farms, but foxes, chinchillas, rabbits, dogs and other animals are also victims. Animals raised on fur farms live in intense confinement, and suffer psychologically. Neurotic behaviors include pacing, circling, self-mutilation, and throwing themselves against the sides of their wire cages. Caged foxes will resort to cannibalism. Although some animals die from disease, stress, cannibalism and self-mutilation, enough survive to make the endeavor profitable.
:: Confinement ::
In the wild, a male mink has a range of approximately 2,500 acres. A female has a range of 40 acres. On a fur farm, a mink is typically confined in a cage measuring 12 inches by 18 inches.
> Has to live in a teeny-tiny cage when should be moving around in the wild.
PLEASE. Just take ONE look at a video of the process of making fur clothes.
You're going to freak out.
I understand back in the day why people used animal fur to keep warm and survive i don't know if i could ever do it, any way we are more advanced now in this day and age there is faux fur and other materials and so there is no need it is just for a fashion statement and i believe it is ugly and disrespectful let the fox wear its own skin and you wear yours.
I love animals , I have all my life. I do think fur is cruel and is the main reason I don't wear it. I can't put an animal though all that suffering for vanity . And with so many alternatives I just don't see the point.
Animals are defenceless against humans , they are what we want them to be , your food, your clothes your entertainment your thing to test stuff in it. I choose different they are my best friend my inspiration my teacher my idols … I don't know why but I have always thought that animals have the right to be in this planet as much as we do I chose to respect them and protect them … why because I can
It is immoral. In this day and age, unless you live somewhere in cold Mongolia there simply is no excuse to support the trade that breeds animals in horrid conditions only to kill them in, often, very painful and slow way, for a fashion statement. There is absolutely no benefit that an average human being in a modern world can gain from wearing fur. There is no moral justification. It is extremely unethical. If you wear fur, you are basically saying that you don't care about the suffering that you support by buying it and promoting it.
Notwithstanding the distinction between fur for fashion and fur for survival as already pointed out, I should point out the fact that humans have a much greater degree of rights. It is a logical fallacy to think that animals can be compared to humans in this regard. It is the quality of independent consciousness and thinking that gives us humans rights. Animals cannot think on their own; they are instinctual. People can choose by their own independent decision; animals, on the other hand, cannot. Can animals vote? Never.
It is perfectly sensible and intelligent to wear fur, all you are doing is utilizing the whole animal. When an animal is killed, it has to be skinned anyways, if the fur is not used, this is simply more waste. The native Americans, who respected nature more than any other culture, wore fur coats, it is not unethical because all you are doing is using the animal fully, it is not suffering from you skinning it after it's already dead. There are only a few species that are hunted directly for their pelt/fur, and even if they are hunted for their fur, their meat is still usually sold, I don't mind hunting and killing animals in general, as long as the whole animal is used and it's not simply for sport.
Why is wearing fur made out to be bad? It's an animal, and the fur stripping process is painless because the animals aren't skinned alive. (The video PETA did was fake, the fur industry doesn't work like that) It's painless, it looks good, and the animals aren't sentient. So why shouldn't I be allowed to wear fur?
If anything is more uneathical, it's patroliun-based, non-rentable faux fur that doesn't break down in landfills. Besides, all of that PETA skinning alive junk isn't true. Nonetheless, you have no right to judge someone as a heartless animal killer just because of what they wear. It's certainly not heartless to wear a renewable resource that would have the raise gone to waste. If you're against fur, you'd better be a vegan living a 100%-animal-free lifestyle.
What do we, as people, have to gain by applying the concept of ethics to something that is not people? Nothing. It does makes out lives more uncomfortable. This is especially true for individuals whose livelyhood (ability to eat, live well, etc.) would be negatively impacted. Not killing animals for fur (whether the fur is used for survival or vanity) will not make people more ethical with regards to how they treat other people. This is a nonissue created by individuals whose ideas of moral worth, compassion, or innocent are broad to the point of meaningless. There are an perhaps when we live in a world with no famine, starvation, war, etc. We can come back to this issue.
Clothing originated from furs, which were harnessed from the food we needed. Rather than waste the furs of the food we eat, let us utilize them. But I disagree that an industry is designed just for furs, where hunting is just for furs. That is my honest opinion, we should take from the Native Americans.
Why is this even on here?
You cannot dictate what one shall wear if you are not a vegan. You still eat meat, why do you care about fur? This industry is sustainable and regulated that care for the welfare of animals. Animals are not skinned alive as it is just unnecessary for the fur farmer. Fur is beneficial to every member of society. By Samuel Sebastian
To argue of what is "ethical" or not is a waste of time; it's like debating someone's favorite color. Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. Most anti-fur arguments are emotion-based; these arguments, therefore, appeal to those who are more emotion-based thinkers. On a purely rational level, there are some pretty darn good reasons for having a viable fur industry. Hunters and trappers help control wild animal populations, which is ultimately good for animal species. Disease, starvation and deaths on highways for animals would be even greater if there were no hunting or trapping. Animal rights fanatics refuse to acknowledge this reality, and become vicious if you even try to raise the point. Further, the argument that we should not wear fur if we do not eat the corresponding animal is ridiculous for many reasons. People wear leather from countless animals that they do not eat, such as sheepsking, kidskin, alligator, etc. Yet, there is hardly the inflammatory response generated from someone holding an alligator bag as there is from someone wearing a fur coat. Why is that? Further, in many instances, animals raised and trapped for fur are also used for food--for other animals! That's right, fur ranchers and trappers sell meat from their stock to pet food companies. So, is it still wrong to wear fur even if the meat is sued to feed other animals? PETA again won't fairly address this question. Also, philosophically speaking, if eating an animal's flesh makes it okay to wear it's skin, then instead of railing against the fur industry, why don't we just encourage everyone to eat mink burgers? The argument is a weak one at best. It makes no difference to the animal whether it is killed for food or for its skin. This argument is one based purely on emotion, to make its proponents feel better about themselves. Do you really think the steer that died to make your handbags and Guccie loafers cares that it was also turned into steaks and burgers? Of course not; it's a ridiculous argument. In terms of ranched animals, the idea that they are all skinned alive is a lie. PETA has used videos from third-world countries, which are unregulated, and applied this practice to an entire industry. This is unfair and dishonest. Most of the world does not use these practices. In fact, the domestic fur industry uses euthanasia practices also used by veterinarians. Animals are not tortured and abused on fur ranches. In fact, they live longer than they would in the wild. Wake up, people, and stop buying into emotional arguments with little real-world application.
I don't agree with killing animals for the sake of "fashion. It is a animalistic, brutal act that humans should be well in advance of. However, animals do die...What is wrong with using their fur after death? How would that be different that a human donating their organs/hair to society? Just my thought/opinion.