So I'm reading this article about overstock.com is going to stop selling fur. Now if you have a business of selling stuff to people I fully support you choosing what products to carry and what not to carry. If by choosing to carry or not carry some item you are making some kind of political or ethical statement which is being made into company policy, I would think that you would want some consistency to avoid looking foolish or hypocritical.
For instance if your the owner of Buy-N-Large and you decide to stop selling digital cameras because of the picture of atrocities in the country of Guilder that were published on the Internet. In your prepared statement you state that you will no longer carry Sony, Fuji, Olympus camera's in support of the genocide fighters (or some such). Now everyone knows that Buy-N-Large carries Kodak as well and that they will continue to sell those after the policy is in place.
Back to reality - Chief Executive Patrick Byrne stated:
“You don’t have to think about it very much before you realize … you’re completely objectifying an animal when you say I’m going to wear it as a decorative object. That’s over the line for anyone who gives it any thought, I would think.”
What about when the animal is made into skirts, pants, jackets, shoes, or belts...?
2 comments:
I think it's a mistake to anthropomorphize animals. You shouldn't abuse them, but don't assume they have a dignity equal to humans. If cows weren't so tasty, they wouldn't be the overwhelmingly successful species they are today.
I have an issue with people that want to save the cute, fluffy animals, but continue to wear leather and eat cows.
My choice to be vegetarian is more for my health benefit than saving the cows. Thus, I will wear the leather that's leftover from other's consumption of meat. And for shoes, at least, I haven't come across a better alternative to leather for comfort & durability.
I doubt I'll be buying any fur though.
Post a Comment