Should people wear fur products?

Wearing fur is no worse than wearing leather

Question: Should people wear fur products?
Position‹2 of 3›: Yes, it's fine to wear fur
Argument‹3 of 3: Wearing fur is no worse than wearing leather

While people reject wearing fur, wearing leather shoes, bags and jackets is not looked at with the same scorn, despite fur and leather being essentially the same thing.

The argument

Many more people advocate boycotting real fur than boycott leather, and that gap denotes a double standard of the same kind as the one in the meat farm versus fur farm debate. The two materials come from animals raised and killed for human use, and the argument is that no one has explained what separates them. To treat them differently is to claim that the animals harvested for their leather somehow experience less torture and pain than those farmed for fur — a claim that is simply not true, and one that almost no one who observes the distinction would actually defend if asked to state it plainly. PETA states, "For the animals involved, leather production is just as violent, painful, and deadly as the fur trade. Buying leather also supports the meat industry." That second sentence extends the point rather than repeating it: a leather purchase is not an isolated transaction but one that helps fund the larger industry the hide came from. The inconsistency also shows up across markets. The Asian market slaughters dogs for leather every day, yet the standard applied there differs from the standard applied to fur — which suggests that what governs public objection is which animal is involved and how visible the product is, rather than how much suffering the production caused. Because leather and fur are both obtained in cruel and inhumane ways, consumers should treat them the same. The argument does not require anyone to approve of either: it requires only that the same judgement be applied to both, and someone who wears leather while condemning fur has not made that judgement consistently.

Premises

[P1]Far more people boycott fur than leather, revealing a double standard since both come from animals harvested in cruel, painful ways. [P2] PETA notes leather production is just as violent and deadly as the fur trade and also supports the meat industry. [P3] Treating fur differently wrongly implies leather animals suffer less, which is untrue. [C] Therefore, because wearing fur is no worse than wearing leather, it is fine to wear fur.

Counter-arguments

Consumers do not necessarily treat these two trades differently - many people who refuse to buy real fur also boycott leather. Additionally, within the collective global consciousness, they are not treated the same way by consumers; fur is solely a fashion accessory, while leather can be used for a much wider assortment of everyday things like furniture, car seats, tools, and book bindings. Leather is significantly cheaper than many of the alternative materials that animal rights activists propose, so it is easier for lower income people to afford the material itself. Leather and fur are inherently different materials.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Leather and fur are used for vastly different things, regardless of how curely both of them are harvested. [Rejecting P3] Leather and fur should not necessarily be treated equally.