Isn't fur the ultimate expression, the inevitable result, of the social construction of our species' supremacy over non-human animals? And, isn't it exemplary of our cultures' crudity?
"Fur animals" are bred and harvested for the sole purpose of skinning them for their fur: the singular goal of bringing these feeling creatures into existence is "fashion." What compounds this moral wrong is the impracticality of the fur coat, and the explicit classism that animates this blase statement that cruelty-is-fashionable. All those animals are starved-to-weight as to allow their skin and fur to be more easily torn from their bodies, so an infinite minority of the population can "show off their wealth and status" over cocktails.
As if it is possible to make this epitome of our cultures' attitudes towards non-human animals more damning, after they're de-skinned - often while conscious! - their carcasses are not consumed, they are merely discarded atop a pile of dead or dying individuals.
In a world where being capable of having any interests at all is sufficient for entrance into the moral community this form of sadism would properly be criticized for its immorality - the unjustness of this practice would be unquestionable.
In the world's current form, however, this practice is the logical conclusion of our beliefs. It's inevitable and justified - this occurs because we explicitly support the world-view in which this practice finds its support.
Non-vegans, this is the logic of your position: non-human animals are tools for our use - possessors of value so long as they are of use to us - therefore, murdering an animal for his coat so that someone else can wear it is perfectly acceptable.
It's difficult for me to recognize the difference between these two actions:
- starving an animal, beating him until unconsciousness, and then skinning him until he awakes, screams, and blinks, then using the product for clothing. And,
- engineering a specific breed of chicken whose breast is so large, so unnatural, that they are incapable of standing up and moving forward, de-beaking them without anesthesia, shackling their legs, sending them to the "electric bath," and then chopping off their heads - whether they are conscious or not - and then consuming their bodies.
In both instances, the animals are tortured and killed unnecessarily: the products of their misery do not fulfill an essential need or a need at all, but a trivial human desire. We do not need to eat chickens, we prefer too; we don't need to wear another animal's fur coat, we prefer too. There simply is no other way to look at it, unless we divorce ourselves from logic and reason. I know you don't want to believe that it is the same thing, but it is. Just think about it, get beyond your own self-interest and what our culture "naturally" does.
Interestingly enough, "enlightened" omnivores often express their anger over fur, sometimes over a plate of pork chops, buttered corn, and a glass of milk, while failing to recognize the irony in that their advocacy for a world free of fur farms would logically lead to a world free from breeding and raising a hog to fulfill our preference for the taste of "ham." To justify the former is to justify the latter, and vis-a-versa.
Think about it: If you are, why are you angered over fur, it's just like eating meat, or testing on rabbits, or hunting deer, etc.? If an animal is a mere thing for our species to use, what the hell does it matter what we do to them - they are our tools!
If you're starting to believe that it does matter, please, let's talk about it. But don't you dare just rest in your hypocrisy; that is no way for a life to be lived.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox.
Leave a comment