Pro-fur argument flawed

RAYMOND Young (South China Morning Post, January 30) says that there are serious flaws in the arguments of the anti-fur trade lobby, one of which is that it is a cruel trade. I fail to see a flaw there; I even fail to see an argument: it is an incontrovertible fact.

Anyone who acquaints himself with the facts of what happens to animals in this trade can hardly think otherwise. Mr Young then goes on to say that there are other cruelties committed against animals. That is certainly true.

But to attempt, as he does, a comparison between the amounts of suffering inflicted in the slaughter of animals for food, fur, testing of cosmetics, or for pleasure, is besides the point. The fact is one evil exists does not justify further evils. It is Mr Young's argument that is flawed. Winnie Cheung (January 30) makes a similar mistake. The fact that animals die to provide leather does not excuse killing animals for fur. Two wrongs don't make a right.

People who are content to let animals suffer often deploy an argument similar to Mr Young's: why bother about animals when people are suffering? This is another non sequitur, to which I would make the same reply. Surely all suffering is bad.

It is a sad state of affairs when an attempt to prevent the suffering of any sentient being, whatever the species, becomes the subject of scorn and is not given the praise it deserves.

JEAN HOPKIN Discovery Bay