Should people wear fur products?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should people wear fur products?
Position1 of 3›: No, wearing fur is wrong
Argument1 of 2›: The fur industry massacres animals

Over a billion animals are killed each year for the fur industry, and the moral depravity in participating in such a wide-reaching and cruel corporate structure is immense.

The argument

The fur industry kills over one billion animals each year, and such a widespread and permeating business must be stopped. The horrible conditions in which these animals live is morally repugnant to many animal rights activists, and the methods by which they are killed for their fur are incredibly cruel and inhumane. According to PETA, "Small animals may be crammed into boxes and poisoned with hot, unfiltered engine exhaust from a truck. Engine exhaust is not always lethal, and some animals wake up while they are being skinned." The level of immorality and greed on display in an industry that makes billions of dollars per year shows how important it is to not participate in the unbelievably barbaric process. The fur-farming companies must not be rewarded for their ruthlessness.

Premises

[P1]The fur industry kills over one billion animals a year in conditions that are morally repugnant. [P2] Its killing methods are cruel — PETA reports animals poisoned with engine exhaust, some waking while being skinned. [P3] Participating rewards this barbaric, billion-dollar industry for its ruthlessness. [C] Therefore, because the fur industry massacres animals, wearing fur is wrong.

Counter-arguments

Should there be a distinction between factory-raised meat for human consumption and mink in the fashion industry? Many activists who claim that fur farming is inhumane and cruel for the animals will regularly consume chicken and pork products in similarly torturous conditions. Refraining from the fur farm process and failing to refrain from the meat farm one seriously contradicts the philosophical and moral implications behind the movement. If fur farms are inherently cruel, then should activists not be always discussing meat farms in the same exact light?

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The meat industry is similarly cruel and inhumane to animals, yet the argument only mentions consumers' obligations against fur farms. The industries should be treated the same within the argument itself. [Rejecting P3] Consumers are morally obligated to fight against more than just the fur industry.