Ban Fur? Then Why Not Leather? Much to the displeasure of some local businesses, the City Council in West Hollywood, California, voted without opposition last week to ban the sale of fur products. Should laws be involved in this issue? Is it unfair to ban sales of fur, but not sales of leather and hides (兽皮)? Animals Do Not Have Rights By Tibor R. Machan My view is that animals do not have basic rights. It is a matter of ethics (伦理学) and not of the laws of human societies. If animals had such rights as human beings do, they would have to be held responsible for killing fellow animals in the wild. That way of thinking about animals makes a category mistake. Using animals, including their fur or organs, to improve people's lives is acceptable. A Small Step Against Cruelty By Kate Carter Both fur and leather are the skins of dead animals. Why should we think that the lovable furry ones deserve more of a life than the less pleasing ones? Some say leather is less cruel because it's a byproduct (副产品) of the meat industry. But this isn't really true. Some cheap leather may be a byproduct of the meat industry, but often it's the other way round. In South Africa, where there is a developing market for ostrich(鸵鸟)farms, the skins account for roughly 80 percent of the slaughtered (宰杀)birds' value, a mere 20 percent of which comes from the meat. "Who" Are You Wearing? By Marc Bekoff West Hollywood's ban is a move in the right direction. However, we must work to ban the sales of leather and hides, too. Furs come from animals who are attacked to become clothing, while some leather and hides come from slaughterhouse(屠宰场) animals. We must remember that when people choose to wear fur, leather and hides, they are wearing formering conscious beings. So it's a matter of who they are wearing, not what they are wearing because these animals must be referred to as who and not what or that. 小题1:What is the passage mainly about?
|