Emily's question of "Are there times when wearing fur is morally justifiable?" still stands here. It wasn't until this morning that I thought of another way/reason that wearing fur can be morally justifiable. I know there are animals out there (sheep, llamas, alpacas, maybe even long-haired rabbits) whose fur is shaved in the summer to make the animals more comfortable. The heavy fur is removed, the animals' coats are lighter, and they won't be as hot. The fur is then taken, processed, and made into yarn or other materials and turned into clothing. In this way, the animals are not killed - in fact they are quite comfortable - and we get warm, comfortable clothing to wear. To me, it's a win-win situation for all.
That said, I have two questions: 1) Do you still see this as wearing fur? 2) Are there any downsides to this?
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Fur as Clothing: A Response to Emily
Emily asks: Is wearing fur morally justifiable?
In our society, I don't think it is. I made this point in another blog, but fashion companies are making a push for realistic-looking faux fur on the designer school level. They look, feel, and part like real fur, and as a result, more students and faculty are looking to faux fur as an alternative. Also, they watched a video of how animals are treated in the fur factories. Even big-name designers are fooled by the look and feel of the faux fur, and many are making the switch.
That said, some societies may need fur for clothing. It goes along the same lines as subsistence hunting, but instead of hunting for food, you use the fur. Not to say that the food still isn't used. In any case, if there are no other viable alternatives, using fur can be morally justifiable.
My question now is, if there are viable alternatives to real fur in our society (like the realistic faux fur), why do some still use real fur?
In our society, I don't think it is. I made this point in another blog, but fashion companies are making a push for realistic-looking faux fur on the designer school level. They look, feel, and part like real fur, and as a result, more students and faculty are looking to faux fur as an alternative. Also, they watched a video of how animals are treated in the fur factories. Even big-name designers are fooled by the look and feel of the faux fur, and many are making the switch.
That said, some societies may need fur for clothing. It goes along the same lines as subsistence hunting, but instead of hunting for food, you use the fur. Not to say that the food still isn't used. In any case, if there are no other viable alternatives, using fur can be morally justifiable.
My question now is, if there are viable alternatives to real fur in our society (like the realistic faux fur), why do some still use real fur?
Friday, November 5, 2010
Aldo Leopold
There is a quote among Aldo Leopold's piece, Game and Wildlife Conservation [1932], that really struck out at me. It said,
"I realize that every time I turn on an electric light, or ride on a Pullman, or pocket the unearned increment on a stock, or a bond, or a piece of real estate, I am 'selling out' to the enemies of conservation. When I submit these thoughts to a printing press, I am helping cut down the woods. When I pour cream in my coffee, I am helping to drain a marsh for cows to graze, and to exterminate the birds of Brazil. When I go birding or hunting in my Ford, I am devastating an oil field, and re-electing an imperialist to get me rubber. Nay more: when I father more than two children I am creating an insatiable need for more printing presses, more cows, more coffee, more oil, and more rubber, to supply which more birds, more trees, and more flowers will either be killed, or what is just as destructive, evicted from their several environments," (Leopold 451).
I realize this is a long quote, but it is worth mentioning. The last statement "evicted from their several environments" is true enough. Animals like deer are leaping across roads to get from one forested area to another, or are overpopulating an area because they can't go anywhere else, either thanks to humans building a town or city nearby, or roads being all around. Creatures like bears and coyotes, which are seen as dangerous creatures, are coming into contact with humans because their habitats have become smaller, thanks to human population, and they are looking for food. Sometimes these encounters end dangerously because a pet will be attacked. I don't know how likely it is for these animals to attack humans, but I won't discount it. Raccoons go through trash and are seen as pests, but again, they have been forced out of their natural habitat. They are trying to survive.
As for the rest of Leopold's quote, he wrote this piece in 1932. The damage may have been done then, but my guess is that it certainly has grown since. There are more people on the planet now than there were then, and so the demand for things like cream, coffee, paper, rubber, and oil are higher than they were before. That is especially true for rubber and oil, because there are more cars on the road than there were in the 1930s, and because cars today are more efficient than cars back then.
My question now is this: do others think that the destruction Leopold addressed back then has increased since? Why or why not?
"I realize that every time I turn on an electric light, or ride on a Pullman, or pocket the unearned increment on a stock, or a bond, or a piece of real estate, I am 'selling out' to the enemies of conservation. When I submit these thoughts to a printing press, I am helping cut down the woods. When I pour cream in my coffee, I am helping to drain a marsh for cows to graze, and to exterminate the birds of Brazil. When I go birding or hunting in my Ford, I am devastating an oil field, and re-electing an imperialist to get me rubber. Nay more: when I father more than two children I am creating an insatiable need for more printing presses, more cows, more coffee, more oil, and more rubber, to supply which more birds, more trees, and more flowers will either be killed, or what is just as destructive, evicted from their several environments," (Leopold 451).
I realize this is a long quote, but it is worth mentioning. The last statement "evicted from their several environments" is true enough. Animals like deer are leaping across roads to get from one forested area to another, or are overpopulating an area because they can't go anywhere else, either thanks to humans building a town or city nearby, or roads being all around. Creatures like bears and coyotes, which are seen as dangerous creatures, are coming into contact with humans because their habitats have become smaller, thanks to human population, and they are looking for food. Sometimes these encounters end dangerously because a pet will be attacked. I don't know how likely it is for these animals to attack humans, but I won't discount it. Raccoons go through trash and are seen as pests, but again, they have been forced out of their natural habitat. They are trying to survive.
As for the rest of Leopold's quote, he wrote this piece in 1932. The damage may have been done then, but my guess is that it certainly has grown since. There are more people on the planet now than there were then, and so the demand for things like cream, coffee, paper, rubber, and oil are higher than they were before. That is especially true for rubber and oil, because there are more cars on the road than there were in the 1930s, and because cars today are more efficient than cars back then.
My question now is this: do others think that the destruction Leopold addressed back then has increased since? Why or why not?
Friday, October 29, 2010
A Response to Hallie
Hallie asks: Do you feel that members of your family or close friends are less ethically in the wrong when they do something you deem to be immoral than people you have never met or do not have a relationship with?
In her post, Hallie mentions how her family hunts deer and later eats the venison. To answer her question, I think some people do feel that their family is less ethically wrong, while others don't but are more willing to forgive or overlook some things like hunting.
Of course, there are some things I would hope people would stop a family member from doing. If anyone in my family were to ever abuse an animal - not feed it enough, not give it enough attention, kick or hit it for no reason - I would speak up and stop it. (Of course, no one in my family ever would do this - it's just an example.) When it comes to strangers, people also speak up in the defense of animals. I've seen enough animal cop shows to know that when people see a major problem with the way an animal is being kept or treated, they report it, whether or not they know the owner of the animal.
Of course, there are differences between keeping a pet and hunting. For one thing, as has been mentioned repeatedly by many people, when a person takes in a pet, they are taking on the moral responsibility for that animal. They need to be the ones to look after it, and if that cannot happen, they should not get a pet in the first place. With hunting, the intention has never been to take care of an animal, but to go out and kill it for a trophy, food, or what-have-you. So perhaps the fact that the animal is going to die or has already died plays a part.
What I would like to know is, is it easier to speak out against something when you know it can be changed (changing the conditions for an abused animal) than when it can't (a deer that has already been killed)? This question is not limited to family and friends or strangers; it can be for both.
In her post, Hallie mentions how her family hunts deer and later eats the venison. To answer her question, I think some people do feel that their family is less ethically wrong, while others don't but are more willing to forgive or overlook some things like hunting.
Of course, there are some things I would hope people would stop a family member from doing. If anyone in my family were to ever abuse an animal - not feed it enough, not give it enough attention, kick or hit it for no reason - I would speak up and stop it. (Of course, no one in my family ever would do this - it's just an example.) When it comes to strangers, people also speak up in the defense of animals. I've seen enough animal cop shows to know that when people see a major problem with the way an animal is being kept or treated, they report it, whether or not they know the owner of the animal.
Of course, there are differences between keeping a pet and hunting. For one thing, as has been mentioned repeatedly by many people, when a person takes in a pet, they are taking on the moral responsibility for that animal. They need to be the ones to look after it, and if that cannot happen, they should not get a pet in the first place. With hunting, the intention has never been to take care of an animal, but to go out and kill it for a trophy, food, or what-have-you. So perhaps the fact that the animal is going to die or has already died plays a part.
What I would like to know is, is it easier to speak out against something when you know it can be changed (changing the conditions for an abused animal) than when it can't (a deer that has already been killed)? This question is not limited to family and friends or strangers; it can be for both.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Food Allergies
This is a thought that struck me today, so the first thing I did was jump on here to write this. It seems that so many food allergies are popping up today than ever before, both in the variety of allergens and the number of people allergic. There are nut allergies, soy allergies, gluten allergies, and so many more. I know it is hard to avoid these things in food, but fortunately there are more products being made without these ingredients. To me it seems that unless prepared with one of these ingredients, meat carries none of these harmful allergens. For those who eat meat and have an allergy, I feel as if they have more options.
I do know that for anyone with an allergy, proper management of a diet is in order, be they meat eater or vegetarian. But my question now is this: Is it harder to be a vegetarian if you have a food allergy? I mean no offense by this post, I am only curious to know.
I do know that for anyone with an allergy, proper management of a diet is in order, be they meat eater or vegetarian. But my question now is this: Is it harder to be a vegetarian if you have a food allergy? I mean no offense by this post, I am only curious to know.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Shelter Pets: A Response To Sarah
Sarah asks: Are we morally obligated to save animals in shelters that have been abused and forgotten about?
The only answer I can think of is to save an animal from an untimely death for nothing done wrong. Of course, "done wrong" is a loose term if you follow Regan's principles, but it is the phrase I will go with here. Animals are left in shelters when an owner can no longer care for a pet or a pet is taken in as a stray or is unwanted. Unless the shelter is a no-kill shelter, the chances of an animal being euthanized is high. Shelters are too crowded and not enough people are adopting these animals.
But with the shelters, there is another overlying problem here. Some owners are lax in breeding prevention and let their pets outside, where it is possible for another animal to become pregnant. This can then create unwanted pets that will eventually be dumped in shelters if there is no one to take them in. Also, as I mentioned in my post on exotic pets, a pet owner will buy a young, cute animal, and grow bored with it, will not be able to care for it, or it will not be cute anymore, etc., and will dump the animal in a shelter.
I have seen circumstances like this where it is not a pet owner's fault. Sometimes an owner is forced to move and if they move into an apartment, there is a chance they will not be able to keep a pet. Also, I saw this on the show Pit Boss that I also mentioned in a previous post. There was a family who had a dog who was half pit bull living on a military base and the father was away on duty. If I am remembering correctly, the military already had a law saying no full pit bulls could be kept on the base, but then another was passed that no pit bull mixes could be on the base either. This was based on breed discrimination alone. The family clearly loved the dog and was broken-hearted. Fortunately for that dog, Mila, the mother in the family called Shorty Rossi who took the dog with him and found her a new home. Unfortunately, not so many pets in Mila's situation are so lucky.
Clearly there needs to be some reform, but should the reform be in the shelters, in the practice of keeping a pet, or the pet industry?
The only answer I can think of is to save an animal from an untimely death for nothing done wrong. Of course, "done wrong" is a loose term if you follow Regan's principles, but it is the phrase I will go with here. Animals are left in shelters when an owner can no longer care for a pet or a pet is taken in as a stray or is unwanted. Unless the shelter is a no-kill shelter, the chances of an animal being euthanized is high. Shelters are too crowded and not enough people are adopting these animals.
But with the shelters, there is another overlying problem here. Some owners are lax in breeding prevention and let their pets outside, where it is possible for another animal to become pregnant. This can then create unwanted pets that will eventually be dumped in shelters if there is no one to take them in. Also, as I mentioned in my post on exotic pets, a pet owner will buy a young, cute animal, and grow bored with it, will not be able to care for it, or it will not be cute anymore, etc., and will dump the animal in a shelter.
I have seen circumstances like this where it is not a pet owner's fault. Sometimes an owner is forced to move and if they move into an apartment, there is a chance they will not be able to keep a pet. Also, I saw this on the show Pit Boss that I also mentioned in a previous post. There was a family who had a dog who was half pit bull living on a military base and the father was away on duty. If I am remembering correctly, the military already had a law saying no full pit bulls could be kept on the base, but then another was passed that no pit bull mixes could be on the base either. This was based on breed discrimination alone. The family clearly loved the dog and was broken-hearted. Fortunately for that dog, Mila, the mother in the family called Shorty Rossi who took the dog with him and found her a new home. Unfortunately, not so many pets in Mila's situation are so lucky.
Clearly there needs to be some reform, but should the reform be in the shelters, in the practice of keeping a pet, or the pet industry?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Animal Arguments on the Human Level
In class yesterday, Kim made an excellent point in the case of animal ethics, something to the effect of we wouldn't use humans for experiments, why use animals? (Please correct me if I am wrong, Kim, if you read this.) Dr. Johnson has also used the point many times of saving your own daughter over the neighbor's many times to prove a point, although there have been some variations as of late (your daughter having a hang nail versus the neighbor's daughter drowning). But even in the readings I have noticed a pattern.
Even in our readings, many of the arguments for and against animal ethics have been brought to the human level, the latest being in Brody's piece. So while this post is not very long, it brings up an interesting question: Why is it that the most compelling arguments on either side of animal ethics are often brought to the human level?
Even in our readings, many of the arguments for and against animal ethics have been brought to the human level, the latest being in Brody's piece. So while this post is not very long, it brings up an interesting question: Why is it that the most compelling arguments on either side of animal ethics are often brought to the human level?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)