I recently found an article about the new law in Los Angeles that turned fur sales illegal. In the article, two different points of view about the ban are exposed: on one hand, council member Bob Blumenfield says "we will no longer be complicit in the inhumane and vile fur trade that’s been going on for years”, on the other hand, Harry Naim, the proprietor of a fur store, said that he was “absolutely against the ban and was very angry about it”.
This article made me think of one of the remarks made by Falk & Szech (2013) about the mouse experiment: “the notion that the existence of a market signals the morality of a transaction”.
The banning of fur sales makes me wonder if the social perception about what is moral or immoral can change through time and lead to the extinction of some markets. The recent public concern about making markets cruelty-free and the increasing number of defenders of animal rights has already influenced several markets.
Also, the banning of fur seems, to some people, much more reasonable in places like L.A. than in cities with colder climate like Moscow. Does that mean that killing animals for fur is moral in cold climates but immoral in hot climates? Can the morality of one action shift depending on the context?
Two important questions arise:
to what extent can markets lead to immoral behavior before that behavior becomes so unacceptable that it makes the market significantly smaller or even disappear in some places?
how can global markets reconcile two different perspectives about the morality behind one same good?
Let me know what you think. The link to the article is below.