The Issue of Wearing Animal Fur - Essay Example

Lecturer: Presentation: The United s is the world’s largest provider of wild-caught fur. Animals are trapped using steel-jawed traps and the fur used in the making of coats, hats and other apparels. According to Ritter (2008, p. 57) 15-20 foxes, 60-80 minks, or 27-30 raccoons are used to make one fur coat. The U.S also has a very high consumption of animals with total meat consumption (red meat, poultry & fish) amounting to 195 pounds per person in the year 2000. This was 57 pounds above the average annual consumption in the 1950s despite increased protests by animal rights activists. In Canada the seal is under threat due to its fur and the use of animal fur is based on fashion. This brings us to the question; is wearing animal fur morally acceptable or morally wrong? In this paper, I will argue that wearing animal fur is morally wrong as it is a violation of animal rights. Secondly, in contemporary society there are many alternatives that can be used instead such as faux fur without subjecting animals to inhumane conditions. Thirdly, the purpose for which the animals are killed is not ethically justifiable as it is not a necessity but a luxury. Peter Singer in his book the Animal Liberation argues that “All animals are equal” (Hinderer, 1992, p. 229; Singer, 1990). This is the principle under which Singer basis his argument against killing of animals for any purpose whatsoever and I do agree with him. There are many oppressed groups in the society which continuously crave for their freedom such women, blacks and people of colour, Aboriginals and other marginalised groups. Racism and sexism are abhorred as they involve exploitation of one group by another (the dominant group) due to their colour or condition. This is morally wrong as all men were created equal and have inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Just like the women liberation movement or black liberation movements fought against prejudice and discrimination based on the basic moral principle of equality, so do animals as an oppressed group deserve. If we stick to the evolution story, men originated from animals like apes hence are also animals. The only thing that distinguishes men from animals according to philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes is that they can think or are intelligent (Loptson, 1998, pp 173-176). When Singer says that ‘all animals are equal’ he thus means that men as well as animals should be treated equally without discrimination as just like men have rights and interests, so do animals. He refers to discrimination of animals by humans as speciesism which is s equally immoral as racism and sexism. Since animals are not able to fight for their rights, the Animal Liberation movement is equal to the task to ensure that animals are not mistreated by humans and that they achieve equality as men although their rights differ. Since animals are in a sense equal to men, they do not deserve to be discriminated against by being used for food, fur, medical experiments or product testing (Garner, 2013). Hunting animals, wearing fur coats and keeping animals in zoos is also morally wrong according Singer. Justice requires that we treat others as we would like them to treat us and the same case applies to animals. If we do not kill fellow human beings for food or fur, why should we kill animals for the same? Animals have a right to life just like humans and do not deserve to undergo any suffering on basis of their being different to humans. According to Singer (1990, p. 329) “no being should have its interests disregarded or discounted merely because it is not human.” Equal consideration should thus be given to all beings and it is the work of moral philosophers to determine particular interests of individuals. This is because humans and animals have interests not as species but as individuals which need not be trampled on. Making animals suffer by trapping them and skinning them alive as a video released by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) showed is unjust and morally wrong. Opponents would argue that animals cannot be treated equally as humans since they are less intelligent and they are not subjected to suffering as humane standards set by the federal government and state regulations are followed in handling them. Furthermore, animals do not respect each other’s rights so why should they be afforded rights in the first place? As regards to intelligence, even human species has some individuals who are handicapped or mentally retarded and are not treated as lesser beings. Children too do not have intelligence but are treated equally as others (Hinderer, 1992). The fact that animals are not intelligent does not give humans the right to infringe on their rights. Besides, some of these animals like guerrillas and apes are more intelligent than some humans. It is agreeable that animals are not like humans hence can be denied some rights which are not to their interest such as voting but the right to life is essential and cannot be abridged. The only way animals can be subjected to suffering is if their life is in danger and the suffering would end their pain (Regan &Singer, 1989). As for respect for each other’s rights, even some human beings do not respect the rights of others that is why they subject them to suffering such as genocide yet they are not eaten or killed. People like Hitler and Stalin the worst dictators of their time did not respect the rights of others yet were not subjected to suffering. The animals have a right to remain with their fur as it is their property and not be subjected to suffering just to get this fur for human selfish needs. Even if proper procedures and regulations are followed when handling such animals, in the end they are killed for their fur and this is infringement of their right to life. For Singer, animals should not be killed for any purpose whether for meat, fur or any other purpose as this is morally wrong. He argues that rights depend on the capacity to suffer and enjoy happiness; hence suffering should be taken into consideration. Men as such have a moral obligation to cease to support the practice of rearing animals to kill in order to satisfy trivial interests such as fashion. Wearing animal fur is morally wrong as there are many alternatives available without having to subject animals to inhumane conditions. A video by PETA showed how animals reared for fur in China are subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions in animal factories (Garner, 2013). Such animals are put in tiny cages, painfully electrocuted or suffocated and suffer an agonizing death of trapping. Moreover, they are skinned alive and left for the dead. This mistreatment of animals is unnecessary as such benefits offered by these animals (fur) can be achieved in other ways (Francione, 2002, p. xxiii-xxiv). In traditional societies, fur was being used as clothing since there was no other means of survival but the modern society has no excuses. Those who use fur coats argue that it is for provision of warmth but there are many synthetic fibres than can serve the same purpose. Moreover, faux fur is also a better alternative as it looks just like the natural fur and gives warmth without having to lose a life of any animal. Many animals lose their lives in the process of making fur clothing especially cats and dogs and this can be avoided. The law (Britain) prohibits fur farming as it is a form of animal exploitation. Laws in Canada are also very strict with regards to killing of seals for fur. Regardless, people still rear such animals for fur thus flouting the law and this is morally wrong. Laws according to Thomas Hobbes are a form of social contract between the state and citizens and should be obeyed at all times (Lapton, 1998, p. 174). This is the reason why when Socrates in the Crito was sentenced to hanging even though he had not committed the mistakes he was being accused of decided to serve his sentence instead of running away from the law as this was tantamount to committing an injustice. Though the notion of justice and injustice or rightness and wrongness or morality and immorality is a tricky or problematic one, it is clear that disobedience of laws is wrong. Morality can be relative depending on the society from which the one judging people’s action comes from as moral standards are established by societies. Whatever is good in one community can be bad in another but there are universally accepted ideas about what is morally wrong such as killing. Rearing animals just to kill them for fur is thus morally wrong. Some would argue that they are just preventing wastage as the animals are already slaughtered for meat. Some even use biblical teachings to justify killing animals for meat or fur. For example, McMillen (2006, p. 273-274) argues that it is God Himself who began the practice of slaughtering animals for skin to cloth Adam and Eve and thereafter for the Passover feast and offerings. Their arguments are justified but the law is law whether it is just or unjust and disobedience is morally wrong. Besides, the crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for Christians hence the practice of burnt offerings no longer continues hence killing animals cannot be justified. Even if the animal is for meat, humans have the option of becoming vegetarians as they would not be harmed by this action instead, they would be healthier. This would prevent them from causing harm to animals which is orally wrong and those hiding behind this practice to justify their actions (fur production) would have no excuse. Even though public opinion in America indicates that most Americans (63%) are likely to believe that wearing animal fur is morally acceptable, I agree with Connie that “there are adequate synthetic and natural materials that serve same purpose as animal fur without killing animals” and as Calloway asserts “we should draw the line using fur for at-risk animal species” (Gallup & Newport, 2006). Wearing animal fur is also morally wrong because there is no reasonable justification for such practice. Garner (2013, p. 91) argues that “whether or not it is justifiable ethically to inflict suffering on an animal depends first and foremost on the purpose for which the animal is being used.” In this case, the animal is being used to satisfy fashion tastes of humans. Is this ethically justifiable bearing in mind of the many alternatives in the market? I agree that humans will benefit through use of animal fur by getting warmth during cold season but does this justify killing animals for fur? I do not think so. Men are rational beings who know how to calculate costs and benefits of their decisions before undertaking them. If that is so, then they would agree with me that there are less costly furs in the high end market that can serve exactly the same purpose. As such, wearing animal fur is just a fashion statement and a luxury for that matter. The benefit that humans get by wearing fur outweighs the cost of killing harmless animals and ending their meaningful life for good. This is not justifiable hence it is morally wrong. Our ancestors did not wear animal skins and fur for fun but as a necessity since they had not discovered other means of survival and animals were the only available resources in the state of nature (Lopton, 1998). But today, people just want to feel good and of high status and forget the suffering these animals go through to make such a piece of clothing; not just one animal, but up to 80 minks just to make a coat. Is this really reasonable? People should just be contented by wearing their own skins as just as they would not like others to skin them, so should they not skin animals and deny them of their God given fur. Besides, who decided that our comfort is more important than the life of these innocent animals who suffer without cause? Their life is important just as our lives are worth living and we do have to wear animal fur to survive. Killing for fur is thus morally wrong. No wonder Garner regards wearing fur as the “worst excesses of factory farming” (2013, p. 89). However we look at it, using animal fur for fashion purposes can never be justified and should be prohibited at all cost. Animals have a moral entitlement not to be treated the way they are treated in fur farms in inhumane conditions. If animals have to be used for any purpose then Hinderer (1992, p. 240) offers a solution of the 3Rs: replacement where feasible alternatives exist, reduction in number where possible and refinement of technology to minimise pain. However, this does not mean it is right to slaughter animals just for fur to satisfy own interests. Conclusion In this paper, I have argued that it is morally wrong to wear animal fur. Firstly, the practice amounts to a violation of animal rights. Animals just like humans have a right to life and liberty and subjecting them to suffering in order to get fur for clothing is abridging this right. As such, animals should not be killed for any purpose whatsoever be it for meat, fur, or medical experiments. They may be treated differently from humans bearing in mind that they are different in many aspects from men but their right to life should not be compromised. Secondly, fur farming has been prohibited in many countries like Britain and breaching such laws is morally wrong. There are many alternatives to natural animal fur that can serve the needs of humans without having to kill animals. Even God deemed it fit not to offer animals sacrifices anymore thus giving His only son for ultimate sacrifice. Animals are therefore, as important as humans and deserve to be treated justly. Thirdly, the purpose for which animal fur is intended cannot be ethically justified. The purpose of fur is just to satisfy selfish desires of men in their fashion world hence wearing animal fur is a luxury rather than a necessity as it used to be for our ancestors. The benefits that men get from wearing fur outweigh the cost of killing innocent animals and thus cannot be justified. For these reasons, wearing animal fur is morally wrong and should be condemned with the strongest terms possible. References Gallup, AM and Newport, F (eds) (2006). The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2004. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Garner, R (2013). A Theory of Justice for Animals: Animal Rights in a Nonideal World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hinderer, DE (1992). Building Arguments. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Loptson, P. (1998). Readings on Human Nature. Canada: Broadview Press. McMillen, RM (2006) Magnify the Lord with Me. USA: Xulon Press. Ritter, C (2008). Animal Rights. Minnesota: Abdo Consulting Group, Inc. Regan, T and Singer, P (1989). Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Singer, P (1990). Animal Liberation: Towards an End to Man’s Inhumanity to Animals. 2ed. USA: Cape. Read More