1 of 27

Write now Article Tools

Is wearing fur immoral?

Controversy has surrounded the use of fur in the garment industry for decades. It's nothing new and it doesn't seem to be going away despite efforts of the industry to bounce back from years of steady decline. Fueling this controversy is a growing number of animal rights groups who have taken a particular interest in methods employed to obtain fur. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for example, was founded in 1980 in Norfolk, VA., and now has over two million members. And the annual revenue of 34 million dollars they enjoyed in 2008 would certainly seem to represent a significant amount of controversy.

What really lies behind this controversy? Movements in America that involve public opinion and protest rarely, if ever escape confusion about the message they wish to communicate. And before we "demonize" the furriers of America and their patrons with accusations of immorality, a closer examination of the issue seems in order.

Obviously the use of animal fur for garments has been around since the beginning of time. Depending upon your particular point of view, fur trading has been an intricate and essential part of the human experience since the first cave men decided it was time to put on some clothes and certainly since the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It hasn't been that long ago since survival and economy both depended on fur bearing animals for clothing, food and trade. I cannot help but wonder how animal rights groups would have fared during those times. Was there an immoral stigma attached to the wearing of fur 200 hundred years ago?

Many regions of the world today still rely on fur bearing animals for the same age's old reasons. What are we to make of the Eskimo whose traditional way of life has hardly changed for thousands of years? How about Aborigines or Amazonians as yet untouched by the trappings of a modern society? Are they immoral simply because members of the animal kingdom just happen to be one of their natural resources essential to survival? I hardly think so. How, then, are we to reconcile this obvious, legitimate need and use of fur bearing animals with an immoral stigma applied to it by a minority of protesters?

With the advent of modern industry came innovations in the clothing industry. Technology revolutionized the way America produced clothing and viewed the clothing industry. Alternative resources and methods of mass production replaced the need for archaic, often inhumane methods of harvesting fur: that is, however, until the status of fur was transformed from essential commodity to luxurious vanity.

While it seems unreasonable to outright demoralize the use of fur in the clothing industry, the methods and reasons for its acquisition are another issue. At the heart of this issue, the human propensity for vanity, greed and cruelty at their best has taken center stage. And while I believe that most of us are reasonable enough to understand there is, in and of itself, nothing immoral about the use and possession of fur for clothing, the motivations for doing so and the methods of obtaining this dreamy eyed status symbol are certainly subject to a different standard of review. And with little hope of striking an essential middle ground of reason between necessity and vanity, it appears fur has just about run its course in the history of fashion.

Learn more about this author, Robert Allport.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Wearing fur is not immoral?
We want to hear your view. Write now!