Wearing fur is no different than eating meat

The argument

Factory farms and fur farms both treat their animals notoriously cruelly, yet many people protest against fur farms while remaining silent about the treatment of cows, pigs and chickens in the major meat industries around the world. The argument here is not that fur farming is humane; it is that the objection to it, if it is sincere, cannot stop where it does. Both kinds of facility inflict pain and suffering on the animals in them, so the question is why such stigma attaches solely to fur farms. According to Sentient Media, "Pigs can become so stressed out that they'll bite each other's tails and feet and even resort to cannibalism. These behaviors do not occur in nature." That last sentence is what makes the comparison work: behaviour absent in the wild and present in the shed is evidence about the conditions rather than about the animal, which is exactly the kind of evidence usually cited against fur farming. If the two industries are relevantly similar, then consistency requires that they be treated equally. And that raises the question the argument is built around: should consumers ridicule someone who buys a real mink coat while themselves eating meat that was cruelly and inhumanely produced? The fur buyer is condemned for a visible purchase made once; the meat eater makes the same trade repeatedly and attracts no comment. The difference in treatment therefore tracks visibility and custom rather than the amount of suffering involved. There should be no distinction drawn between the two, and wearing real fur is no different from eating factory farmed meat — a conclusion that can be reached whether one thinks both are acceptable or that both are not.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Animal fur is solely used for fashion, while factory-raised animal meat provides food, especially for people who cannot afford locally raised meat around the world. While fashion can be seen as a useless mode of animal cruelty that only serves to look good as a coat, while an estimated 75% of agricultural land on the earth is used for meat production, which suggests the sheer number of people relying upon meat to feed them every day. Fur farms can be viewed as a simple accessory, while meat factories can be seen as a worldwide necessity. There is a sizable distinction between the two.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The distinction is in their respective purposes. Fur farms are for fashion accessories while meat farms feed a majority of the world population and are a necessity. [Rejecting P3] Wearing a mink coat is different from eating factory-raised meat.