Rejection Of Fur And Self Moral Redemption Of Human Beings

Human beings have always regarded themselves as "the primate of all things", so they often arrogantly believe that "everything is available to me", so that I can drive at will to meet my endless desires. With modern times science and technology The development of civilization and human activities Environmental Science This "anthropocentrism" visual angle The consequences are increasingly apparent.

If human beings can't put it in the right place in the universe, clearly realize that the earth is not just rotating around human beings, but the earth of all living things, and take relevant measures to effectively prevent human beings from destructive development and utilization of nature, one day, the earth will become a hell that is not suitable for human habitation, and the entire human civilization will be destroyed in the hands of human beings themselves.

Lao Tzu said, "The heaven and earth are unkind, and all things are regarded as dogs". Xunzi said, "The sky is always moving. It is not for Yao to survive or Jie to perish. It is good to govern according to it, and evil to chaos." Although heaven and earth are merciless, they treat all things equally. For the continuation of life, it is natural that human beings will inevitably use other species to meet their needs for food, clothing, housing and transportation.

However, the development and utilization of nature by human beings should be based on meeting their basic needs. It would be almost greedy if they still take from nature without restraint after their basic needs are met. As a member of the animal family, human beings are in a very special position in the food chain, and the types and ways of using animals and plants are far beyond all other species. Because of this, human behavior is likely to disrupt the order of nature and damage the ecological balance.

In the era of farming, fishing and hunting, for food and warmth needs, humans would certainly hunt animals, but the scale of such hunting is often limited, within the scope of ecological balance, and at that time, human damage to the environment where animals and plants grow was also very limited.

Huainanzi · Main Skill Instruction: "Don't dry up the marsh to fish, and don't burn the forest to hunt." It can be seen that the ancients thousands of years ago had a very healthy awareness of ecological protection. Since the industrial revolution, human beings have stepped into the era of unrestrained development and utilization of nature, and paid a heavy environmental and ecological cost for this. Therefore, the issues of environmental and ecological protection and "sustainable development" have gradually come to the agenda of human beings.

Up to now, various alternative products produced by human beings have been able to meet most of the needs that could only be met by relying on wild animals and plants in the past. If raising animals has fully met the human demand for protein and leather products, but other demands at the cost of environmental and ecological damage should be considered immoral. To a large extent, the attitude towards animals can be regarded as an important gauge of social civilization.

Even for the sake of nutrition, civilized people also have a certain degree of guilt and compassion for those dead animals. The ancients said, "A gentleman can cook far away", which is exactly what they meant. It is this respect for life that maintains the ecological balance of the earth and the classical harmony between man and nature.

The bottom line of human morality is not to intentionally hurt others (or "others"), especially not to base their happiness on the pain of others or "others". Although many fur products come from raising animals, it is still necessary to say that the manufacture and use of fur are immoral in modern times.

First of all, the alternative products produced in large quantities can fully meet the human needs for warmth or beauty. In other words, the use of fur is completely unnecessary to meet human basic needs. However, many people regard fur as a symbol of nobility or fashion, and believe that wearing fur products is a symbol of identity and fashion. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. Because the meaning of symbols is artificially constructed, with arbitrariness and uncertainty.

Just as those who shave their heads are not necessarily monks or prisoners, those who wear furs are not necessarily ladies. Real happiness and happiness must be sought from the heart. For a confident, self satisfied person, no matter what he or she wears, he or she will not feel demeaning - even if he or she dresses like a beggar, he or she will feel like an emperor; The need for something to support one's vanity is precisely the lack of self-confidence, lack of security, and failure to find the meaning of one's life. In this sense, fur is actually a symbol of vanity, selfishness, vulnerability, even cruelty and indifference.

Secondly, in order to ensure the quality of fur, the production of fur is based on the cruel killing of animals. According to statistics, the number of animals that need to be killed to make a fur coat is: 15-20 foxes, 60-80 minks, 27-30 raccoons, 10-12 otters, 60-100 squirrels - it is a serious moral sin to satisfy some individuals' unrestrained selfish desires at the cost of such unnecessary cruel killing.

A nation that lacks respect for life is a degenerate nation, and a person who lacks respect for life is an evil person. Such as Arnault As Gruen said, "We have lost sympathy because we have lost the connection with our own inner pain." A person who lacks the sense of animal pain often cannot feel the pain of others, or even his own pain, so he is more likely to hurt others.

Moreover, the tolerance of those who abuse and kill animals will also pay a huge moral cost. Martin Luther King said that the greatest tragedy of society is not the arrogance of bad people, but the excessive silence of good people. Because, this means that tolerant silence will encourage the arrogance of bad people and lead to further deterioration of individual living environment.

In a sense, the "other" as an environment is an extension of the human body, even the human body itself, because the whole world can be seen as a huge organism, or "super organism". What human individuals do to the "other" will eventually reflect on themselves or their descendants. Therefore, harming the "other" is no different from harming yourself by the hand of the "other". On the contrary, being kind to "others" means being kind to yourself. To protect animals is to protect the living environment of human beings and human beings themselves.

To a large extent, being kind to animals and "refusing fur" is not only the salvation of human physical life, but also the salvation of human moral life - human beings will benefit from this "ecological morality". Because this kind of morality with the concept of "harmonious coexistence" as its core is productive, it can reduce human's improper development and utilization of limited natural resources, reduce the transaction costs between people, avoid the internal friction of human's useful energy, and allow more resources to be invested in productive fields.

The ethics of life tells us that cooperation is more important than competition - interpersonal game may not be a zero sum game or a negative sum game in many cases, but can become a positive sum game if properly handled - cooperation can give you more than competition, and cooperation is a more effective means of competition and survival strategy.

How to deal with the relationship between man and nature, including animals and plants, will have a bearing on the future development prospects of mankind. The only way for human beings to redeem themselves is to respect life and treat the "other" well, because the "other" as an environment is actually an organic part of human life.