The impact of global warming is redefining the way humans live, particularly when it comes to consumption approaches. Many consumers are adopting environmentally friendly lifestyles with the hope that they will effectively contribute in reversing the adverse effects of climate change. As a result, such buzzwords as “organic”, “minimalism,” and “local” have gained traction in the recent past. One of the most common ways of achieving organic, local or minimalistic living standards is to use locally available products in their raw forms. Animals provide a variety of products that can be used naturally without the need for industrial processing. Clothes made from animal fur are effective in protecting people from cold weather. According to Moorhouse & Moorhouse (2018), keeping warm is a matter of life and death for people living in cold areas such as the Arctic and Antarctic. Thus, their choice of clothing should be fur and leather, both of which are animal products.
Unlike other clothing raw materials, fur does not involve complex production processes that are harmful to the environment. In addition, it is biodegradable and long lasting, which implies that the environmental damage associated with it is minimal compared to other products. Thus, those who care about the environment should consider fur as a viable alternative (Fletcher, 2018). However, the production of fur involves brutal killing of animals. More focus is put on protecting the fur from damage while disregarding the suffering subjected to the animal. Gassing and electrocution are the most common methods used to kill animals for fur. Invasive electrical probes are very distressing and inhumane ways of eliminating animals (Beltramo et al., 2020). Animals killed through carbon dioxide gassing go through slow and painful deaths. This raises the question about the ethicality of wearing animal fur, particularly considering the kind of sufferings that these animals are subjected to. These actions contravene the provisions laid out by the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee that attach intrinsic values to animals, which must be protected (The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees, 2019).
The ethical dilemma stipulated above is a conflict between loyalty to self and to a community. On one hand, the actor is concerned with the care for the environment and, thus, considers animal fur as a means through which this can be achieved. Loyalty to oneself obligates them to pursue a commitment to the minimalization concept that he believes will significantly contribute in averting the effects of climate change (Fieser, 2017). Incidentally, this can be achieved through the adoption of animal fur as his preferred choice of clothing. On the other hand, the actor is aware that his choice of clothing comes at a cost of terrific slaughter of animals (Peng, 2019). To wear high quality fur cloths, the animals must have been electrocuted or gassed with carbon dioxide to suffer a slow and painful death. This naturally vacates his loyalty to the specific animal species that produce the fur.
If in that dilemma, the most moral thing I could do is to begin by considering the ethical implications of wearing animal fur clothing. I will thoroughly scrutinize if wearing animal clothing is indeed a minimalist concept of consumption as has been widely argued. On the surface, I think it eliminates the complex industrial processes that mainstream inorganic clothing are subjected to. Nonetheless, the main bone of contention here is the cruelty with which the animals are killed before the extraction of their fur (Apostolescu & Serban 2020). Against this backdrop, it will be prudent to limit myself to animal products that can be extracted without necessarily inflicting pain on the respective animals. For instance, wool can be extracted from sheep by shaving the fur and leaving the animal alive. In addition, I will insist on purchasing animal products from vendors who strictly adhere to the government regulated seasons for trapping, which ensure that only surpluses are extracted using prescribed methods. This is the moral thing because it is anchored on moral reasoning and focus on functionality of the outcome.
In solving this ethical dilemma, I believe that the Aristotle’s Golden Mean would be the most appropriate theory to use. This is because Aristotle advocates for striking a balance between two extremes. Indeed, we are confronted by two extremes that conflict each other. If we wear animal clothing, we are significantly contributing to environmental conservation on one hand, and encouraging the horrific treatment of animals on the other hand (Centobelli, 2022). Doing a little of each will involve finding a practical compromise between the two. Hence, a middle ground will be achieved by insisting on only using animals’ products that can be extracted without meting brutality on the animal.
Since it is not possible to immediately determine the outcomes of both extremes, the utilitarianism theory cannot apply, owing to its consequentialism nature. There are no mechanisms available for determining which action will produce the greatest good for the majority. On its part, the natural law of ethics aspect cannot be applied here because of the opaqueness that exist in the definition of the basic principles of morality and legality. Indeed, Aristotle’s Golden Mean approach has the same moral inclination as had been identified above. This is because of its middle ground advocacy, which ensures that no party is grossly affected than the other.
References
Apostolescu, I. & Serban, C. (2020). Husserl, Kant and Transcendental Phenomenology. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Web.
Beltramo, R., Romani, A., & Cantore, P. (2020). Fashion industry: An itinerary between feelings and technology. IntechOpen.
Centobelli, P., Abbate, S., Nadeem, S. P., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2022). Slowing the fast fashion industry: An all-round perspective. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 38. Web.
Fieser, J. (2017). The categorical imperative. The University of Tennessee at martin. Web.
Fletcher, K. (2018). The fashion land ethic: Localism, clothing activity, and Macclesfield. Fashion Practice, 10(2), 139–159. Web.
Moorhouse, D., & Moorhouse, D. (2018). Sustainability in the fashion industry. Clothing Cultures, 5(1), 3–5. Web.
Peng, H. (2019). Research on the development of fashion industry in the “internet+” ERA. Advances in Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, 21–29. Web.
The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees. (2019). Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research. Web.