Vintage fur is environmentally friendly

The argument

The argument sets vintage fur against the two alternatives actually available to a shopper rather than against fur as such. Faux fur has been proven to negatively impact the environment, and many claim that real fur produced today, which contains preservative chemicals to prevent decay, is just as environmentally toxic. On that reading the choice usually presented as the ethical one — synthetic instead of animal — is not a choice between a harmful product and a harmless one, but between two products that each impose a cost on the environment. If both current options are damaging, the question becomes whether any third option avoids the damage. Vintage fur is offered as that third option, and the case for it rests on what it is made of and when it was made. It presents no issue for the environment because of its naturally organic qualities: real fur is an entirely organic product, and a vintage garment predates the aforementioned preservatives and materials that make newly produced fur toxic. Nothing further is manufactured when a vintage coat changes hands, so whatever cost its production carried was incurred decades ago and is not repeated by the purchase. This is what further supports the growing desire for vintage fur in the fashion industry. The second advantage is moral rather than material. Buying second-hand allows consumers to be environmentally conscious while avoiding the moral depravity of buying from cruel fur farms today, because no money reaches a farm currently breeding and killing animals; the transaction runs between one owner and the next. Since the environment is not directly impacted by the vintage fur option and no new animal is harmed by it, the argument concludes that it is essential for consumers to prioritize it when buying accessories — not merely that wearing vintage fur is permissible, but that it is the responsible choice among those on offer.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Faux fur may be negatively impacting the environment, but vintage fur was still harvested inhumanely from animals, no matter how long ago it was. The contest is not between vintage fur and faux fur, but between being environmentally conscious and acting humanely toward animals. It depends on the individual's preference and what they believe acts as the lesser of two evils. Vintage fur, in some contexts, is not always preferable to faux fur.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Vintage fur was also made incredibly inhumanely - no matter how long ago it was produced. [Rejecting P3] Faux fur should not be presented as an automatic moral pejorative because both faux fur and vintage fur have conceivable costs and benefits when compared to one another.