In theory, the purpose of Law is to uphold and shape the moral and ethical standards of society. One such principle of American jurisprudence is not to use cruel or unusual punishment upon criminals; likewise in the US it is a crime to torture a person. It must be more than just the taking of life that offends our society, since we do participate in capital punishment in some states. It must be the mental turmoil inflicted on the mind and 'spirit' of a person being tortured that so disgusts and offends us. We do not agree with the torture of humans, which are in essence, sentient beings. Now Law must take the role of the shaper of morals and ethics. It is in general agreement that animals are also sentient beings; anyone who has ever owned a dog would agree that the animal feels loneliness, anger, etc. and has some level of intelligence deserving of merit. It would be taking the next designated philosophical step for the law to widen the qualification of a creature to not deserve torture from just humans to all animals. (The process of manufacturing fur is in fact torture. We would not skin a human being alive so another could wear the flesh on a brisk Friday evening outing.) We see that the greatest goal of all life on earth is survival, and Darwin has proved to us that survival is not possible without evolution. Because we as humans are dependent on society and civilization to survive, and since 'society' is really only an idea, how will we ever survive if the philosophies of our societies do not also evolve?
2007-06-02 15:46:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Julia 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
My thoughts on this matter are not as black and white as others.
I think we should regulate the conditions of domestic animals, making sure that they are treated well, kept healthy, etc. These conditions should be publicly known so that we can set the standards for how our animals are treated by the animal products we purchase.
I think we, as a race, have hunted from the earliest beginnings of our existence. We *define* the top of the food chain, and it's up to each of us, individually to dertermine if we want to be a vegetarian or not, for instance.
Do I think an animal should be killed strictly for its fur? Probably not in this day of petrochemical-based insulation products. Do I think that the skin and fur of an animal that is killed largely for its meat should be used, as well? Absolutely!
I think the root of the debate should fall into land use laws. Does it really make sense to have cows roaming all over our deforested countrysides, chewing up all the grass they can find and converting it into meat and other products for us? There is an environmental cost and inefficiency in this process, and I think the price is probably too low for grazing rights, etc. right now, just as I *know* it is too low for timber cutting rights.
But I digress. Would I ban the sale of fur outright? No, absolutely not. Would I tax it appropriately to provide a disincentive for overhunting or inefficient land use? Absolutely.
2007-06-03 09:27:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mark M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Would you also ban the sale of leather products?
Why not?
What if people ate the flesh of the fur bearing creatures, then would you still want to ban the sale of furs?
Where is the logic in this?
2007-06-02 17:02:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by gatorbait 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well i know this subject has been around for years,I think its just stupid!!!You are going to eat the cow,deer,goat any number of other animals and you are going to just throw away a valuable resource???That being the skin,hide or fur.Now how stupid is that?? And I just bet you are all the same people who tell me to change my light bulbs and recycle everything!!! And I should stop using paper towels while you use a hair dryer everyday.You see the problem is no two people have the same lifestyle or set of values, there is no need to waste anything animals are resources too.If you are a vegetarian fine,be sure you eat the potato peelings too,Animals are here for our benefit its not cruel to eat them or use the by product.
2007-06-02 20:31:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by peppersham 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Rich people wear fur.
Poor people can't afford it.
It makes the poor people feel depressed to see someone with something that they can't have.
So for the sake of the mental health of people on welfare, fur sales should be banned.
2007-06-02 17:32:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes We should ban the sale of leather, meat, soap, glue, and anything else made with animals....No more shoes, belts, hamburgers, lasagna, lucky rabbits feet, or mink coats.
Do plants have feelings also? Perhaps we should ban the use of them as well...just in case. Has anyone ever been told by a turnip, that it doesn't hurt when we cook it?
2007-06-02 16:20:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Don 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Do you know how they treat the animals that they kill so you can have a fur coat? They have them in dirty small cages. They kill them not for food...but for someone to look cool and stylish in a fur coat. I believe that if you kill an animal for food thats ok but if you kill one just because you want to impress your friends with a new fur coat, well that's just not cool.
2007-06-03 05:20:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by ice38034 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you lived in canada, alaska or some other frozen area and needed a fur skin coat to survive the frigid climate, I dont see a problem with having them. But if your some rich prick in hollywood who wants to wear a mink coat to show your status its disgusting.
2007-06-03 04:19:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dilly 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think of that killing animals for their coats and fur ought to certainly be banned. Animals alongside with seals, minks, and rabbits are all killed for their fur. i think of it is superficial to kill an animal completely for it is fur- there is not any clarification why pretend fur isn't good adequate. human beings see donning genuine fur as being severe in status, and donning pretend fur as inexpensive. it style of feels superficial to me- to harm and kill animals for status. Hunters kill infant seals for their fur and commonly bypass away the carcass on the ice. The animals are commonly killed inhumanly. i think of it is going to certainly be banned.
2016-11-03 11:38:17
·
answer #9
·
answered by jesteriii 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because fur comes from living, breathing animals, how would we like it if animals killed us for our skin. It's not bad enough they are killed, they are brutally murdered.
Remember the fur you're wearing was someone mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter.
It's bad enough that we take away their natural habitats, but we slaughter them as well.
All God's creatures deserve to live, except maybe the cockroach.
2007-06-02 17:05:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋