Everyone should be Free to Wear Leather and Fur

Clothing made out of fur and leather can last longer than the life of the animal that produced them. Therefore, the use of fur and leather is one way of extending the productivity of animal products beyond the consumption of meat, milk and labor. It is important to view fur and leather clothing as animal products just like meat. Everyone should be free to wear fur and leather. Instead of arguing against the use of fur, concerned voices should be advocating for proper ways of animal management.

Why Everyone Should be Free to Wear Leather and Fur

According to Wenz (1989), carnivorous animals predate on other animals for their food. That is the natural way of their food chain. Humans are omnivorous and can eat both animal products and plant products. In addition, humans are civilized and have other needs such as clothing and shelter. The most natural way of obtaining resources to fulfill their needs is by mimicking the food chain. Thus, it is natural for humans to kill animals for fur, just as it is natural for them to kill for meat.

Humans rely on nature’s imagery to develop a symbolic life in line with their civilization. An examination of the human nature and civilization reveals several contrasts. The contrasts structure how humans regard the world such as purity and danger, the raw and the cooked sacred and profane. As long as humans are using their imagination based on the symbolic life of nature, they are bound to encounter many conflicts. The conflicts we revolve around the two principles of living an imaginative and meaningful life and on the other hand, doing no harm to animals (Wolfe, 1993).

Now basing on the above realization, it is okay for animal rights activist and theorists to state that there are patterns present in human living that are cruel to animals. Their argument, that people’s way of exploiting animal species to make their lives rich and meaningful is wrong, would suffice in this case. However, their argument fails short of the fact that in order for people to make the world rich and prosperous, they have to include fantasy, excitement and creativity. Without what the said cruelty to animals, then life would be numb. There are numerous examples of the ways in which human practices rely on some degree of animal cruelty to have a significant meaning and impact. They include religious practices, art, sport and cultural expressions (Wolfe, 1993). In the same manner, where society allows for rearing of cows and other animals for their meat products, it should allow the use of fur and leather to make clothing.

The debate on animal cruelty wrongfully advocates for the total avoidance of animal products. If that were truly a justified case, then it would be inappropriate and immoral to use any animal for any benefit. If activist campaigns against use of fur and leather were sincere then, they would also discourage wildlife tourism and bird watching as human activities that exploit animals and birds. Unfortunately, they do not and that serves as a container for suspicion in their arguments.

Animal cruelty is subjective depending on culture. It is wrong to assume that every fur and leather product comes from an animal that faced torturous conditions. There is need to recognize that animals have lifespans and one way or another they must die. Secondly, domestication of animals is product of civilization whose aim is to benefit from the animal products without having to endure the stress of hunting down animals like other predators.

Before industries were developed, humans lived in forage societies and had no capacity to manufacture alternatives to animal products through processing of plants and other materials. The advent of industrialization is good because it provides alternatives to fur and leather among other things. However, it does not present an absolute solution to the balance of species in the world. A scenario where there is no use of animal product or their derivatives for the sake of saving animals from cruelty appears noble but hides problems of population control that would arise.

In natural selection, predators help to keep species populations within numbers that their environment can support. When you remove a predator from an ecosystem, you allow the prey species population to grow without a check. The downside would be a rapid reduction of the species serving as food to the former prey species. The resulting food chain would be unstable and eventually collapse with the death of all species out of lack of food unless a new species appears to complete the food chain. Likewise, human predation of animals serves the natural order of maintaining their populations. On the other hand, as human population increases, it is only appropriate that other animal populations decrease so that a balance suffices on the food chain. Food chain in this case includes use of animal products other than food. Moreover, as the demand for certain animal products increases against their limited supply, their value increases. When the importance of such animals increases, then naturally it becomes apparent that their preservation is more profitable to the society than their destruction. However, this does not imply that such animals should not be killed. Instead, the harvest of their products, either meat of otherwise, needs a more sustainable approach.

The debate about the use and killing of animals should not be about cruelty, except in the extreme cases, but on the sustainability of their use to the ecosystem. According to PETA, an organization advocating against use of animal products such as fur, animals have their throats cut while they are still conscious (PETA, n.d.). That is true; however, it does not amount to cruelty in an extreme sense. Besides, any other way of killing the animals let blood remain in the animal’s body when the requirement is for a blood free meat. Moreover, PETA claims that it is cruel to skin animals alive (PETA, n.d.). What opinion would the same organization hold for a lion in the wild hunting and feasting on an antelope as it fought for its life?

Conclusion

It is natural for one species to kill another for food and other resources including pleasure (Wenz, 1989). People concerned with the cruelty of killing animals for fur and leather need to remind themselves that the industries producing the alternatives that they advocate for also guilty of animal cruelty as they define it. Just like fur production leads to the production of wastes that pollute the environment, the alternative products also pass through the industrial process leading to by-products that have negative environmental effects. Therefore, it is hypocritical to call for a stop on animal cruelty by discouraging use of fur and leather. Once again, everyone should be free to wear fur and leather. Concerns should be on sustainability of the environment rather than morality.

References

PETA. (n.d.). Animals used for clothing. Retrieved 5 July 2011, from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/default2.aspx

Wenz, P. S. (1989). Treating animals naturally. Between the Species, 1-10. Retrieved 5 July 2011, from http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=bts

Wolfe, A. (1993). The human difference: animals, computers and the necessity of social science. Los Angeles: University of California.