Beauty & Style Is it Wrong to Kill Animals for fashion etc

[Niximus]

I don't have a problem with using animals as a resource for anything as long as they are treated humanely and it is sustainable.

i,e, If you want to eat whale, learn how to farm them. because really they are just big swimming cows.

 

[jimmyclean]

Humans being the apex predator of this planet gives us the right to kill virtually anything.

Animals didn't suddenly show up in 1900 and we started slaughtering them, the majority of animals evolved with us, (the problem is our hunting methods have evolved beyond the ability of our prey), discounting habitat reduction etc. many animals need to be killed by humans to keep them from overpopulating their habitat.

That said, any animal that a human kills should die a quick and humane death, using as much of the animal as possible.

It's just good manners.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

What does keep the world in balance mean?

In regards to extinct species and our treatment of endangered species, I'd say we're seriously failing at keeping the world in balance.

Humans as a whole are the worst thing that could have happened if we're talking about maintaining the natural structure/balance of this planet. We do a lot of good and of course I am thankful that we exist because for the most part it's a pretty enjoyable existence, but anything that is exotic and beautiful must be slain because we simply must taste it or wear it to impress high society (or try to fit in with high society).

The world is our oyster and we pick at it as we please, sure many fascinating and rare species are disappearing before our eyes but there are still plenty more, right?

This.

As to the OP, absolutely it is wrong. It's incredible that some people think it's OK to slaughter an animal because we think we'd look good draped in its skin.

 

[kaysee]

This.

As to the OP, absolutely it is wrong. It's incredible that some people think it's OK to slaughter an animal because we think we'd look good draped in its skin.

So why is it "wrong"?

 

[Schulzenfest]

Because you're killing another living thing purely to serve a shallow, material purpose.

 

[Yabba]

This.

As to the OP, absolutely it is wrong. It's incredible that some people think it's OK to slaughter an animal because we think we'd look good draped in its skin.

Obviously you have never worn leather shoes?

Killing endangered animals is not right, it needs to be sustainable but we eat the food, why not use the fur, etc if it otherwise going to be thrown away?

 

[Schulzenfest]

If you're using the food AND the fur, I don't have a major issue with it. If you're killing animals purely for fur, I do.

 

[Caesar]

I don't know. I've never felt the desire to wear fur, but I do think that it's one area that gets an excessive amount of attention from the animal rights movement. There is nowhere near the same stigma surrounding (say) eating eggs from battery farms - something that I think is far more terrible in terms of the way the animals are treated.

And in its own way, wearing fur is really no less 'necessary' than eating lamb or veal. In both cases there are alternatives. And I mean, it's not like animals killed for fur are completely wasted - they're usually turned into dog food or something. The efficiency of capitalism at work.

I think it's very much an image thing. Fur is not far enough removed from fuzzy little animals for people to be able to dismiss it as easily as other stuff. It's kind of like how so many people are opposed to the hunting of whales because of the graphic footage you see in the news, but don't have nearly as much objection to other forms of sustainable animal slaughter.

Anyway, the point of my post is not really to speak in favour of wearing fur or whaling, but to muse on some inconsistencies.

 

[kaysee]

Because you're killing another living thing purely to serve a shallow, material purpose.

Yes... so again why is it wrong?

It isn't against many society's laws or even against some religions. Our is it more our own perception that it should be "wrong".

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I lived in Brisbane for 10yrs and killed heaps of Cane Toads. The most humane method is to chuck them in the freeza. However, the most fun is to launch at them with a golf club. My friend once trapped one in a pool net and drowned it, which is not on.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Yes... so again why is it wrong?

It isn't against many society's laws or even against some religions. Our is it more our own perception that it should be "wrong".

Why is anything right or wrong? Because we perceive it to be so based on our own morality. My morality tells me that it's wrong, if your morality doesn't then that's your prerogative. But to be honest I'd hope you get red paint thrown on you.

 

[kaysee]

...
Anyway, the point of my post is not really to speak in favour of wearing fur or whaling, but to muse on some inconsistencies.

Exactly... many people's opinions are conditionally influenced by general social pressures (family/friends/school/media) in certain areas.

They have no real solid basis on why it is right or wrong. Same goes for tribal communities in the world where adorning yourself with animal remains is a symbol of experience, power and wealth... but their communities conditionally influence them as well.

I am neither "for it" or "against it"... I just find it fascinating the reasons why (or lack of) people are either way... and how some get so passionate about ala GreenPeace etc.

At the end of the day I believe it is so those "pro" people can receive a good, warm, fuzzy feeling inside that they've done something "good".

 

[Schulzenfest]

That's the whole point of morality, isn't it? To feel like a good person? Or at least to avoid feeling like a bad one?

I wouldn't wear fur, just like I wouldn't (for example) cheat on someone in a relationship, because that's what my morality says is right.

 

[Thrawn]

I've often said that you need a good reason to kill an animal. Pest control, clothing, food - yeah, fine. I don't think being fashionable falls into "good reason", take it for what you will. However, I do think the way the animal is killed should be taken into consideration, for any of the above.

That said, any animal that a human kills should die a quick and humane death, using as much of the animal as possible.

I've known people who spray petrol on cane toads and burn them alive. Or stick knives in them, watching them squirm and call that "funny". But since they're pests, apparently it is OK to do all these disgusting/horrible things.

I'm not against killing animals myself (sometimes it is necessary), but I hate people who torture them and/or do extremely painful things when it's not necessary. People, in my view, who torture animals like cane toads - are really no different to people who would torture someone's dog or cat. Why? Because it's really all about the mindset - the intention to go out of one's way to inflict physical harm/lots of pain to a defenceless animal that can't really be blamed for being what it is. I don't really care if it's a cane toad, or a dog - it's all still gratuitous animal cruelty.

At the end of the day I believe it is so those "pro" people can receive a good, warm, fuzzy feeling inside that they've done something "good".

Of course it may feel "good", but that isn't necessarily the reason for doing it in the first place.

Yes... so again why is it wrong?

It isn't against many society's laws or even against some religions.

If an alien species invaded us and decided to use you as a bracelet, would that be wrong?

"Many society's laws" - yes, and witch burning wasn't illegal when it was such the rage. Since when does law alone dictate our morality? What is your point?

Exactly... many people's opinions are conditionally influenced by general social pressures (family/friends/school/media) in certain areas.

And yours most likely are, too. But then again, I don't rely on the media to spoonfeed me... I make my own judgements. Yes, family is a big part of this too - thankfully I was brought up in an environment where animal cruelty and abuse were discouraged, and not with abusive parents who kept on kicking the family pet because they were closet sociopaths.

it is no coincidence that the 'safer' the society the more "morale" our laws become (across our species and others).

It's also because we have a greater understanding.

A) Say in our "caveman" days with short lives, low survival rates and more threats... humans couldn't give a rats about "morality" towards other species or even humans. They HAD to survive... else it was pointless.

We were barely that above non-human animals with little sense of community and unity - there was little morality not because of survival, but because we almost as dumb as a plank of wood. I doubt a caveman would understand let alone comprehend how you are feeling when he is clubbing you over the head with a crude club because he is either hungry or you pissed him off by simply looking as his mate (and isn't in dire straits as your scenario seems to paint out). All very instinctual behaviour, but unlike cavemen, we have our senses.

B) Fast forward to say the middle ages when the black/bubonic plague was running riot... humans didn't care about moral treatment of say rats... because they were a threat to our survival.

How's that the reason for "not caring" ? People back then didn't even realise how the plague was spreading in the first place, the most common explanation was "the devil". In fact, they didn't care about moral treatment for any animal, really (with the exception of a few, most believed that they had no feelings or emotions, or unless it was a pack animal that was of vital importance). Don't forgot that the fleas responsible for the plague hitched a ride on humans too, humans by themselves were a bigger threat due to their ignorance in regards to hygiene and religious beliefs (eg. cats and snakes are the devil, let's kill them off and let the rodent population explode).

C) Now... with almost zero threat to our survival ESPECIALLY in developed countries (except war)... we continually develop deeper "morale" laws towards other species... such as how rodents are killed.

And? Isn't that a good thing? I'd call it moral progression. Are you against such progressive laws, because I would have thought less crueller ways of control is a step forward. We aren't in medieval times any more.

NOTE: other less developed societies who still face threats to their survival don't have these high moral laws.

That's because such countries are so unstable that there'd be little to no point to such laws, as the focus is on stability and the welfare of the population. And you don't need something to be a law to say "hey, this shit isn't right..."

If I'm an extremely poor person in a third world country, does this give me an excuse to... oh, I don't know, catch a cat, skin it alive and impale it? I'd get arrested and sent to jail if I did this here... yet if I did in Sierra Leone, law enforcement wouldn't give a damn. But then again, that's a rather big assumption, because it assumes that there are no law officials who like animals and dislike cruelty to them. And what about China? There's certainly no threat to their survival, yet have little to no animal welfare laws. Why? But that might be different now, I'm not sure.

 

[Thrawn]

Obviously you have never worn leather shoes?

Obviously you have never heard of synthetic leather?

If you have to kill an animal to wear shoes to protect your feet, I wouldn't call that "fashion". You're simply using a part of an animal for non-vanity purposes, no different than using its meat for sustenance. We wear shoes to protect ourselves from the elements and from nature, "fashion" is simply a by-product of this.

If it looks good, it's just a bonus. The core intention, however, is something different. If it's simply just to look good alone, then no, I don't agree with that.

 

[BarneyBent]

Obviously you have never heard of synthetic leather?

If you have to kill an animal to wear shoes to protect your feet, I wouldn't call that "fashion". You're simply using a part of an animal for non-vanity purposes, no different than using its meat for sustenance. We wear shoes to protect ourselves from the elements and from nature, "fashion" is simply a by-product of this.

If it looks good, it's just a bonus. The core intention, however, is something different. If it's simply just to look good alone, then no, I don't agree with that.

What if those animals are bred and raised specifically for the purpose of being used for their skin or fur? If this need was removed, then they never have a life to begin with.

Surely it is better to have lived and died, than never to have lived at all?

 

[Schulzenfest]

Good luck creating a leopard farm

 

[Thrawn]

What if those animals are bred and raised specifically for the purpose of being used for their skin or fur? If this need was removed, then they never have a life to begin with.

Surely it is better to have lived and died, than never to have lived at all?

There are better uses for them than for pure vanity... besides which, most animals in the fur trade are captured from the wild.

But if this scenario were the case - we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we? The animals would not likely have existed at all, thus, it is a rather redundant point.

 

[BarneyBent]

Good luck creating a leopard farm

Not the point. Many animals are farmed. If leopards could be farmed, would you still be against leopard skin? There is nothing to say that leopards couldn't be bred to be less aggressive, and more "farmable". If wolves could be domesticated, surely leopards could be?

I am generally opposed to the killing of wild animals for any reason that is not pressing. Trawling for fish is a tricky one. It could be argued that it provides industry, stimulates economy, etc, and is often a much cheaper method of procuring fish meat than farming them, which from a broad economic perspective is quite important, and so the killing is not superfluous or gratuitous, and I am inclined to agree, to a certain extent. But I find hunting for sport, whatever is made of the carcasses, morally unjustifiable.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I personally would be, for the reason Thrawn stated here

I don't think being fashionable falls into "good reason", take it for what you will.

 

[BarneyBent]

There are better uses for them than for pure vanity... besides which, most animals in the fur trade are captured from the wild.

Whether there are better uses or not is quite beside the point. The use can be as ridiculous as you like, it's not the use itself which is important, but the fact that this use, this need, this demand, allows for more lives to be created and lived by more animals.

I know most animals in the fur trade are captured from the wild, but again, that is not central to the point. Fur COULD come purely from farmed animals, and in this case, would fur be immoral? I would say not.

But if this scenario were the case - we wouldn't be having this discussion now would we? The animals would not likely have existed at all, thus, it is a rather redundant point.

Sorry, but I don't get what you're trying to say. If what scenario were the case? What is redundant?

If animals were farmed for fur, they would exist. If they weren't, they wouldn't. Demand for fur leads to these animals living when they otherwise wouldn't.

The only logical argument against that point of view is that they don't know what they're missing, and are at least being saved the pain of a premature death. That's all good and well, but it somewhat devalues life, and to me has all sorts of nihilistic implications. You might as well say that we should all commit suicide, as life, what lies between now and our death, has no value. While it is difficult to argue against that philosophy, and it may well be true, it's very nature makes it impossible to live by. We are better off placing value in life, and indeed we instinctively do, almost by default.

So by that reckoning, any animal life is a positive. Farming for fur means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, farming for fur is a positive. It's quite simple logic, in the end.

 

[BarneyBent]

I personally would be, for the reason Thrawn stated here

But surely that reasoning only stands up when talking about animals that would have existed whether or not their fur was desired. Surely if their SOLE PURPOSE was to be killed for their fur, and if this purpose did not exist, THEY would not exist, then killing them for their fur actually grants them life they would otherwise not have had. Surely this is then a positive?

 

[Thrawn]

Whether there are better uses or not is quite beside the point. The use can be as ridiculous as you like, it's not the use itself which is important, but the fact that this use, this need, this demand, allows for more lives to be created and lived by more animals.

The use itself is extremely important, and is certainly not besides the point. It is the reason why people are making a moral argument in the first place.

I know most animals in the fur trade are captured from the wild, but again, that is not central to the point. Fur COULD come purely from farmed animals, and in this case, would fur be immoral? I would say not.

The animals are still being killed for purely one's vanity, farmed or not. What is the moral difference?

Sorry, but I don't get what you're trying to say. If what scenario were the case? What is redundant?

Contemplating non-existence based on cessation of a particular activity.

It's pointless.

If animals were farmed for fur, they would exist. If they weren't, they wouldn't. Demand for fur leads to these animals living when they otherwise wouldn't.

Even though (assuming) their lives specifically would be complete hell?

I mean, christ, take puppy mills for example. Do you really think that it is better having them born and suffer much than to cease such a breeding program in the first place?

The only logical argument against that point of view is that they don't know what they're missing, and are at least being saved the pain of a premature death. That's all good and well, but it somewhat devalues life, and to me has all sorts of nihilistic implications.

But where are you leading towards this?

You might as well say that we should all commit suicide, as life, what lies between now and our death, has no value. While it is difficult to argue against that philosophy, and it may well be true, it's very nature makes it impossible to live by. We are better off placing value in life, and indeed we instinctively do, almost by default.

I never said that life has no value. But in this particular scenario, it is better for the animals not to have been born at all.

So by that reckoning, any animal life is a positive. Farming for fur means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, farming for fur is a positive. It's quite simple logic, in the end.

That is such flawed logic, and a fallacious argument, I don't even know where to begin.

One could use your reasoning to breed dogs only for the purposes of smashing their legs with a sledgehammer, or some other psychopathic thrill. "Farming for sick thrills means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, farming for sick thrills is a positive". Does not compute. That's the same logic you're using, essentially. See, this is precisely why the reason is important.

 

[BarneyBent]

One could use your reasoning to breed dogs only for the purposes of smashing their legs with a sledgehammer, or some other psychopathic thrill. "Farming for sick thrills means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, farming for sick thrills is a positive". Does not compute. That's the same logic you're using, essentially. See, this is precisely why the reason is important.

I skipped the rest because it all relates to this one point. This is a straw man argument. Your scenario introduces a new aspect, and that is the nature by which the use is enacted. The purpose of smashing their legs with a sledgehammer is not in and of itself, in pure isolation, morally reprehensible. What is morally reprehensible is the pain that they would suffer. It would be torture.

In my scenario, where they are farmed for fur, they are merely killed, quickly and painlessly. They are then put to use AFTER dying. Can you see the difference? In your scenario, the animals are tortured. In my scenario, they are not.

Try your scenario out again, but this time, make it that the dogs legs are smashed with a sledgehammer when they are already dead. Legs still smashed by sledgehammer. No torture. Not nearly as bad. The only pain is the pain of dying, which is part and parcel of life.

 

[Thrawn]

I skipped the rest because it all relates to this one point. This is a straw man argument. Your scenario introduces a new aspect, and that is the nature by which the use is enacted. The purpose of smashing their legs with a sledgehammer is not in and of itself, in pure isolation, morally reprehensible. What is morally reprehensible is the pain that they would suffer. It would be torture.

No, it isn't a strawman argument - it illustrates why your logic fails. And hard too.

Your logic being: "Any animal life is a positive. X means the creation of additional animal life. Therefore, X is a positive."

I've shown why it isn't applicable all the time, you were referring to a different scenario, but the logic itself is fundamentally flawed.

In my scenario, where they are farmed for fur, they are merely killed, quickly and painlessly.

Yet you never stated this, at all. You were just vaguely referring to farming of fur, and some of these places are quite inhumane to their animals. Besides which, I am questioning the morality of killing an animal purely for vanity.

They are then put to use AFTER dying. Can you see the difference? In your scenario, the animals are tortured. In my scenario, they are not.

I'm poking holes in your logic, not your scenario. And yet again, your scenario has the moral quandary of reason. What is the reason behind it?

Try your scenario out again, but this time, make it that the dogs legs are smashed with a sledgehammer when they are already dead. Legs still smashed by sledgehammer. No torture. Not nearly as bad. The only pain is the pain of dying, which is part and parcel of life.

I don't think you understood the purpose of my scenario...