In today’s rapidly and technologically developing world, people make a variety of different businesses to earn financial stability and become rich. In fact, one of such businesses is considered to be production of fur-made clothes, wearings, and garments (Gunn & Foxman, 2015). People nowadays tend to and have a great desire to look unique, attractive, and rich. Modern society is found to dictate its own rules and terms of outlook and, as a result, people tend to follow. Therefore, there is a great demand for distinguishing attributes and properties ‘ such as fur-made clothes and accessories ‘ that differentiate people apart. Even though there are specific societal, public, and private organizations that focus on advocating for animals’ right, those particular companies maintain to jeopardize the environmental balance and to decrease the population of specific species simultaneously resulted from their actions (PETA, 2016). In particular, it should be noted that there are two parties involved in outcomes of such negative practices ‘ producers (companies) and customers. In this manner, it should be said that whilst there is a demand, there is always a supply. In other words, since there are people who wish to buy clothes of naturally extracted fur ‘ notwithstanding the cost and even lives it is derived on ‘ there would always be business companies who attempt to fulfill those demands and provide this kind of goods (PETA, 2016). In fact, they are not seriously responsible for the living creatures, yet they are more concerned about the profitability of their practices ‘ although their actions are to be unethical and immoral. However, animals are also living creatures and they have a natural right to live. The most concerning part is the fact that, according to ‘Respect for Animals’ (2015), there are no legal restrictions, bounds, and/or disciplining sentences for those who adversely influence on and kill animals for fur products. Accordingly, although there is a majority of people who wear fur-made clothes and wearings to look fashionable, and though a variety of companies make a profit by making fur clothes ‘ killing animals should be exterminated based on ethical and moral principles.
First of all, killing animals for fur has an impact on overall environment. Fur extracting business companies and producers directly and indirectly influence on the basic living conditions and terms of living creatures. In point of fact, by killing animals, they threaten to exterminate particular species and thus damage the population and balance of food chain. In accordance with Bekhechi (2012), it is studied that more and more animal species are entered into the Red Book annually. Moreover, Bekhechi (2012) and Angela (2016) claim that the decreasing population of particular animals is accounted for manufacturers of fur-made clothes and accessories. Notably, the number and types of distinguishing animals are endangered and could potentially even be exterminated (Angela, 2016). As a result of such practices, there is also a certain negative and adverse effects on the balance of food chain of carnivores and herbivores. In this way, because some species are outnumbered by other species, carnivore sort of animals barely can find it hard have a proper nutrition in terms of searching for herbivores and other animals. Moreover, one of the most repulsive part of this business is the fact that while there is a decreasing number of certain species, the demand for the fur of these species is to be increased (Abnett, 2015); respectively, the cost for fur of those species is also to be increased, which induces companies to hunt and kill more animals no matter the damage they left after themselves.
Second of all, such business involves bloodshed and cruelty towards living creatures. Killing animals for extracting their furs are one of the most immoral and unethical thing to do. While those people focus on killing and extracting as much fur as they could, they do not care and are not responsible for the ‘left-outs’ and outcomes they cause towards the environment (Yu, 2014). Hence, fur-extracting and producing fur-made clothes involves a lot of bloodshed and cruelty. Animals are also living creatures and thus they have an ethical and moral right to live. They have emotions and they feel both physical and emotional pain. Owen (2006) argues that the fact that animals cannot stand for their rights does not mean that we ‘ as greater living creatures ‘ have a right to kill them merely for our demands and desires. In addition to that, Owen (2006) discusses that, far back in the past, it was understandable and reasonable for wild people to kill animals for fur ‘ it was a means to an end, to live. However, according to him, we have transformed into more ‘thinking’ and responsible creatures, and we presently live in an intelligent and sensible society ‘ which means that our actions are based on our common sense. Thus, we neither can demand such humiliations that cause tremendous feel and pain to animals nor approve it. Nonetheless, based on the studies of PETA (2016) and Bekhechi (2012), we demonstrate quite opposite in our decision. It has been expressed that animals are found on many ranches with untreated contaminations and infections, broken and distorted limbs. A few animals were even stuffed into cages nearby decaying cadavers.
Third of all, natural fur is unnecessary for humans; it can be replaced with warm handmade fibers. Presently, our technological advancements and opportunities allow us not to kill animals for getting fur with an aim to produce warm clothes; we have now a variety of different options to obtain handmade synthetic fur for our basic necessities as having qualitative and warm clothes and garments (Gunn & Foxman, 2015). Consequently, it is more convenient, harmless to animals, and reasonable decision to proceed to synthetic fur rather than unnecessarily continuing killing animals. Such approach does not in any way jeopardize the natural environment and does not require killing any species. Yu’s (2014) contention is that nowadays wearing naturally fur-made products is a luxury, not a necessity. In particular, Angela (2016) and Yu (2014) come to assertion that people are responsible for taking a care of animals, not killing them. According to them, we do not now require killing them to get food, warm clothes, and improve our livelihood. Animals are also living creatures, and it violates our basic ethical and moral principles to have them killed for an unnecessary reason. Moreover, producing handmade synthetic fur requires much less efforts and financial costs. Thus, it is reasonable and essential to cease killing animals and promote more considerable options.
In today’s highly demanding world, there is a huge influence of social segregation. Thus, one of the critical challenges for today’s global society is to overcome the challenges of a certain social affiliation. In particular, according to Gunn & Foxman (2015), one of the crucial demands of a higher social position is the opportunity to financially afford to wear garments, clothes, and accessories made of natural fur. In this sense, they show their financial abilities to obtain clothes of natural fur; because natural fur, in fact, comes with a very high price. Angela (2016) asserts that there is even such nature of people who might not merely respect an individual who wears a synthetic made clothes. Notably, higher socially positioned people occasionally might not even show any kind of appreciations for those people who wear synthetic fur clothes for several reasons ‘ firstly, because they regard to them as financially incapable to afford a natural fur; secondly, because they consider synthetic fur to be a cheap replacement instead of natural fur; and thirdly, because people who prefer synthetic fur are viewed to be not fashionable and as they do not follow modern fashion trends (Gunn & Foxman (2015).
In conclusion, killing animals for fur should be prohibited based on basic ethical, moral, and legal principles and terms. The society, government, and organizations should seriously consider the adverse outcomes of such practices and come up with relevant approaches. In particular, natural fur is not necessary for human living ‘ which means that fur-extracting companies operate in this industry because of its high profitability and conveniences. Therefore, even though wearing natural fur is considered to be very fashionable and emphasizes a certain social affiliation ‘ people should seriously take into account the damage they cause to the environment. Besides, while higher social group of people determine natural fur to be a luxury they can afford, they also should think about their influence on the overall population, the lower-level society. Consequently, prominent people should express their respect towards the environment and their oppositeness for senseless killing of animals. Apparently, it is an attractive business, yet such business is accompanied with humiliation against living creatures, animals.