by S. August Abbott (TheCaretaker)

Created on: November 05, 2008   Last Updated: December 25, 2008

Does our ability to lord over the creatures on earth give us permission for cruelty or does it burden us with the responsibility for care? Far too many of the arguments "for" wearing fur mention wearing leather, which I personally feel is equally offensive, but beside the point, it has very little to do with this subject.

Leather is a by product, a leftover from the food industry. No one is eating Ermine, Mink, Chinchilla, Fox and most other fur animals.

When we had no other choices for warmth in our early evolution, there was justification for wearing animal skins and fur. There was a need for survival. Today, with manmade options, it's nearly impossible to know the difference between real fur or leather. In many cases the only thing that dies to make those luxurious fake furs and leather imitations is a warehouse of old tires.

Which brings up another less than educated opinion voiced by some of those who want to wear pelts: They say, "It's a renewable resource." Oh come on! Rather than even begin to address how empty-headed that statement is, let's just go with how much more sense it makes to recycle what we've already made, used, discarded and have no idea what to do with.

www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/fake-f ur

The old tires never feel any pain and not are born to die for human vanity. Tires don't suffer ill treatment, hunger, fear or enter life with instincts to live and breed, to forage for food and find moments of comfort and safety, as close to human peace and joy as it gets. Rings of rubber don't nurse their young, hold them close and fight to protect them.

Another comment frequently made is , "Those animals are MEAN!". Whether it's a fox or mink, somehow because they're aggressive according to some intangible human standard, it's ok to butcher and wear them. This is wrong on so many levels. Let's go back to the leather for an example: a cow is one of the most docile of large animals (although they do have their moments). If being "MEAN" warrants butchering and skinning, let's start with the most purposefully "MEAN" animal on earth. The animal that is fully aware of what they're doing and what the consequences (inflicting physical or emotional pain) will be. Humans are the most dangerous predator on the planet.

Just because a snake bites doesn't indicate it's "mean". It's just being a snake. When a mink fights back, it's defending its life, whether against another mink or any other animal. Struggling to survive is not "mean".

I suppose that fur wearing is also just being human. There's money to be made and that takes precedent over ethics, morality and spirit in some people. Vanity and status out weighs compassion, respect and gentleness. When I see a fur wearer or hear a supporter, my opinion of that individual spirals down. Even if I had the highest admiration for their intelligence and accomplishments up to the very point of that discovery, I couldn't help but question it. I find my mind wandering to other things that may believe okay to do in the name of self and profit. A human being without compassion or respect for life? Or is this a human being who is ignorant (despite possible intelligence)?

So, to respond to the topic of this debate, is it morally ok to wear fur? No. I strongly believe that given the incredible options we have to indulge ourselves without taking a life, dictates that only the lowest of our own species, the most shallow of personalities would endorse killing for egotistical self-indulgence.

Learn more about this author, S. August Abbott (TheCaretaker).
Click here to send this author comments or questions.