Is wearing fur immoral?
- Thread starter lenny2
- Start date
Just someone's point of view of what is right and wrong.Who's morals?
Being a personal of view of right or wrong is different than immoral, which involves a widespread general societal view. Even the farming of mink, sable, and such, that many look on as the most despicable, isn't strictly for fashion as there are byproducts that are used for other things, including food.Just someone's point of view of what is right and wrong.
NO.Is wearing fur immoral?
Now on the other hand, inhuman killing of animals is wrong.
+1NO.
Now on the other hand, inhuman killing of animals is wrong.
but I would lean towards inhumane...
Foxbat fur?It depends on species. A raccoon or beaver are fine. But if you wear the fur of a bear or Foxbat, you are being a plain asshole.
As for bears, since they aren't farmed, we then go to those who hunt them and believe they user all the bear, so it's not just for fur. Now Polar Bears are another matter. Beaver pelts sell at auction for ~$30 which means the trapper/hunter get ~$15. At the extreme end, a polar bear pelt to a inuit hunter can pull well in excess of $125,000-$250,000. Wolf pelts would run round $125 for the hunter or more if they sell it to the public properly certified/stamped of course. He of course uses the rest of the animal.
It still involves someone's point of view. You can group yourselves together and argue whether the majority is correct and those with a different point of view are immoral. As you can see from viewpoints of Western vs Muslim (Afghanistan) - you may not be the majority but you will still judge moral behaviour by your own personal viewpoint.Being a personal of view of right or wrong is different than immoral, which involves a widespread general societal view.
I look at the 'moral' judgement as a collective point of view, as do most Dictionaries. If you feel it's distasteful, wrong, nasty, horrible, fine, but the immoral tag is, by definition, a collective or general view.It still involves someone's point of view. You can group yourselves together and argue whether the majority is correct and those with a different point of view are immoral. As you can see from viewpoints of Western vs Muslim (Afghanistan) - you may not be the majority but you will still judge moral behaviour by your own personal viewpoint.
Seriously 100k+ for a polar bear pelt...that would go a long way up north...Foxbat fur?
As for bears, since they aren't farmed, we then go to those who hunt them and believe they user all the bear, so it's not just for fur. Now Polar Bears are another matter. Beaver pelts sell at auction for ~$30 which means the trapper/hunter get ~$15. At the extreme end, a polar bear pelt to a inuit hunter can pull well in excess of $125,000-$250,000. Wolf pelts would run round $125 for the hunter or more if they sell it to the public properly certified/stamped of course. He of course uses the rest of the animal.
$100,000 is a low estimate. Often the filthy rich hunters who pays $60,000 just wants the head and the bragging rights. The rest goes to the guides. A 1500 lb bear has a lot to offer up to a community.Seriously 100k+ for a polar bear pelt...that would go a long way up north...
How many times do you want to kill them before they are dead?no. if you kill animals for sport- I have a problem with that, if you kill them to live, then its different.
depends. do they owe me money?How many times do you want to kill them before they are dead?
It certainly would, the average Inuit is so poor that when they go seal hunting they lay in wait for hours for two seals to line up so that they can shoot 2 seals with one .75 cent bullet.Seriously 100k+ for a polar bear pelt...that would go a long way up north...
