Introduction
The modern world is full of various moral divisions, greatly polarizing society. One of these is the rights of animals and, in particular, those who are killed to create fur coats and other fur clothing. This topic differs from the controversy about killing animals for food, as wearing fur is completely unnecessary today. At the same time, many people do not stop wearing such clothes, emphasizing their wealth. In general, the paper, which discusses both sides through two perspectives, highlighted complexities of finding appropriate theory for disputes concerning animals.
Description of Positions
Buyers of fur clothes, although not always, ask questions about the morality of their actions. Some quite strong arguments justify killing animals for fur coats. First, the killing of fur species usually occurs on farms or in specialized parts of the wild forest, which does not put the species at risk of extinction. In fact, the number of such animals in North America is abundant, which is confirmed by research (Furbearer Conservation, 2020). Secondly, fur lovers are convinced that companies are trying to minimize the suffering of animals when they are killed. Indeed, companies place great emphasis on minimizing animal pain, as this helps their business become more humane and attractive to a wide range of customers (Anghel & Rascouet, 2022). Thus, the moral foundation of the pro-fur side can be seen as a legitimate base.
The anti-killing side has many supporters, especially among youngsters. In fact, they adhere to the application of deontological ethics to animals. The killing of animals in itself is extremely wrong, especially given the understanding that, so far, many furbearing species are kept in unbearable conditions. Also, one of the obvious arguments is the existence of artificial fur, the production technology of which is improving every year. An identical analog makes the preference for natural fur immoral and unacceptable.
Evaluation of Positions through Moral Theories
Ethical Egoism
The controversy of buying clothes made of animal fur may be greatly analyzed through the theory of ethical egoism. It says that “each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively” (Rachels & Rachels, 2019, p. 73). The extreme selfishness of this position says that ethical egoists will choose the option of buying fur clothes because it may bring pleasure. There is no short or long-term damage from wearing fur clothes, and the suffering of animals also does not have any effect. Nevertheless, Choi and Lee (2021) acknowledge that in some societies that perceive natural fur as a sign of wealth, selfish consumers may use artificial fur that looks natural to “open doors” to high society. The conflict between loyalty to self and a community will be different in different societies. The reason is that some communities may welcome and encourage wearing clothes made of animal fur, while more liberal societies will strongly criticize such people. Thus, taking as a premise the pleasure of wearing fur clothing, it can be stated that ethical egoists will wear fur products if this does not create problems for life in society.
Social Contract Theory
Social contract ethicists favor regularized measures that all people in society will accept to ensure stability. Taking Hobbesian “war all against all” theory as a premise, they acknowledge the dangers of anarchical settings and call for preserving social institutions to ensure harmonious social living (Olssen, 2021). Discussing the case of fur clothes, there are some difficulties in applying a social contract approach because it seems that killing or not killing animals may not bring social disturbance. It is also complicated because it is hard to define what ‘breaking the rules’ means in the proposed scenario.
Nevertheless, it seems that social contract ethicists will choose some restrictions on the fur industry that will not allow keeping animals in insufferable conditions. If the morality of the population changes and they realize the failure of the desire to wear real fur, society as a whole will become more opposed to violence in general. From the perspective of fur companies, it is impossible to avoid breaking the rules, as natural fur is often obtained through smuggling. As for relations between national and personal obligations, it is hard to identify any collision because the issue of fur clothes is not related to harm inflicted on people.
Professional Codes of Ethics
In practice, it may be hard to identify the subject of which ethics to consider. On one side are consumers, while on the other is the fur industry. Fur-producing firms create many societies and NGOs that define the industry’s positive image. One is the International Fur Federation which formulated its code of ethics. The site indicates that “animals on fur farms are protected against sickness and unfit living conditions” (Sustainable Fur, n.d.). All the text is full of convincing statements about the great condition at fur farms. In other words, it is evident that all fur companies will defend the ethics of minimal harm and species preservation. Therefore, there is a conflict between declared ethics and the real state of affairs. For example, many groups like Anti-Fur Society and Fur Free Society describe the harsh methods that still exist in the fur industry. Therefore, clear cases of violation of codes in favor of the accumulation of financial resources create an irresolvable conflict.
Conclusion
To conclude, this essay touched on the important moral issue of wearing clothes made of fur. The major feature of this problem is the alleged absence of the human side in the process, which created difficulties in defining positions. By presenting two points of view, an attempt was made to analyze the debate regarding moral egoism and the social contract theory. Finally, an example code of ethics was used to demonstrate ethics violations when it is not enshrined in law.
References
Anghel, I., & Rascouet, A. (2022). Fur industry hopes certification will help it shed its inhumane image.Bloomberg. Web.
Choi, Y. H., & Lee, K. H. (2021). Ethical consumers’ awareness of vegan materials: Focused on fake fur and fake leather. Sustainability, 13(1), 1-16.
Furbearer Conservation. (2020). What is a furbearer? Web.
Olssen, M. (2021). Hobbes, God, and modern social contract theory. In M. Olssen (Ed.), Constructing Foucault’s ethics (pp. 187-219). Manchester University Press.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th edition). McGraw-Hill Education.
Sustainable fur. (n.d.). International Fur Federation. Web.