|
Furs
killing animals, then skinning them for furs/coats/jackets etc. is wrong. is it still considered wrong if you keep the animal until it grows old and dies and then you skin the animal to make a new jacket/coat/etc. ? i'm really curious.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Random Weirdos?
It's all based on your personal opinion and values on the subject. I personally have zero problem with skinning for any reason as long as the animal wasn't killed in a brutal way (that is also subject to opinion). You feel how you feel about things and show stand up for what you believe.
]
I think it's more fair if the animal doesn't need their fur or skin anymore. I also think that wearing fur is all right, but I hate the idea of taxidermy because there really isn't a need for a statue with real animal fur on it.
]
fur and leather in general is unneccesary. there's no reason for it other than style. also, it's unneccesarily cruel towards animals. even old ones. such a utopia you created in your question where the animal lives a long and happy life doesn't happen in real life. in real life most leather comes as a by-product of the dairy industry. new-born male cows are routinely slaughtered for veal just days after birth. their skin is used for leather because it is the freshest available. old leather from cows that can no longer produce milk can only be used to create suede which is demanded in smaller quantities. and these cows do not die naturally.
]
I don't see it as no different than a person dying and donating and useable inner organs.
You sound like you have a good heart to be curious about such a thing. Here is a good website you might like..
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
]
in my personal opinion, waiting until it dies isn't wrong. if you want to think of it this way, it's recycling. i haven't ever really thought of this before because skinning animals freaks me out a little bit, but there shouldn't be anything wrong with it unless you think that it's wrong. it just all depends on what you think, and if you want to make a coat out of an animal that just died, then you have the right to do that. but i think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. it just creeps me out when people kill animals exclusively to skin them. however, in hunting season i think hunting is important because it would be bad if some species were overpopulated. and most hunters use the meat anyway. sorry, off subject, but i really don't see anything wrong with it.
]
I also think it's very wrong to kill animal's for that reason or for anything else. When they're dead, it's not so wrong. I mean they already died from whatever killed them. I just think it's really sad though.
]
I don't think it's wrong if you don't kill the animal. It died of natural causes and all, it's not like you went out and killed the animal to get something stylish. I'm not sure what the PETA's stance is on this...but I don't think it's bad.
-Teacup
]
I am very against doing that when they are young, but if they are old, I think that might be the wise thing to do, actually. See, they would just end up decomposing, anyway, so we might as well use what's left.
Besides, it's not hurting the animal after it's dead.
Good luck with what you're trying to find!
]
i think that skinning animals for their fur when they die is not wrong and you know they had a long life and their fur will be around for a long time almost like they are still alive. ( i know thats kinda cheesy but its kinda true). hope i helped ♥
]
While I am not a tremendous fan of fur coats, I find "wrong" to be an opinion. How long the animal lives shouldn't have anything to do with it, because it is the principal of the matter. Perhaps if the animal has passed you might not feel quite so bad, but you are still performing the very same actions you claim to oppose. I don't see how one can be "wrong" and the other isn't.
]
Well, how one determines right and wrong depends very much on the ethical viewpoint one has. Within animal rights the two main viewpoints are utilitarianism (part of the consequentialist school) and the rights view (part of the non- consequentialist view).
The first looks for equal considerations of interests. To a utilitarian ethics is a system of pluses and minuses where the "ethical" choice is that which gives the best aggregate result. So, to him keeping an animal like you suggest would be ok providing that its needs were adequately taken care of etc.
For the rights view, ethics is looked at in terms of fundamental right and wrong. One way to look at it is Kants universal law theory (or something like that... its been a while). For every action, instead of looking at the consequences for that action you instead make it into a universal law and see how the world would look. From this view, it might be considered wrong, since it might be viewed as taking advantage of a living being for ones own needs. The happiness and well-being of the creature take a back seat role to the notion that you have taken control of its life (dictated its fate etc), which might be deemed as fundamentally wrong.
There... hope that makes some sense. In reality I believe that this wouldnt work anyway. Im not sure why, I just remember reading a similar suggestion a long time ago and for some reason, it wasnt possible (maybe the quality of the fur deteriorates, or maybe it takes too long for them to die to be economically viable).
]
More Questions: |