Home / I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment / Part IND
"Leather is just a byproduct of meat."
profitable byproducts help pay for slaughter. In the United States, hides traditionally made up about 6% to 8% of the total value of a steer, and were the most valuable byproduct; with the recent fall in prices, the share reached about 1% in 2020. Even small, it's revenue: buying leather helps pay for slaughter and sustains the system. Besides, some leather comes from animals raised partly for their skin, and from highly polluting tanning processes.
Short answer
Leather isn't waste: it's a product that gets sold. In the United States, it traditionally made up about 6% to 8% of the total value of a steer, and was the most valuable byproduct; with falling prices, it reached about 1% in 2020. Even so, it's revenue that helps pay for slaughter. Buying leather funds part of livestock farming. And tanning is one of the most polluting industrial processes, using chromium and other chemicals.
For children
Leather is a cow's skin. People who sell meat also sell the skin, and make money from it. That money helps pay for raising and killing more cows. So buying leather also helps keep going the system that kills the animals.
"If leather had no value, why would slaughterhouses sell it?"
Como pode aparecer
"The leather would be thrown away."
"Better to use the whole animal."
"Synthetic leather is plastic."
"Wearing leather is respecting the animal."
"Leather is a co-product of the meat industry."
"The animal is already dead." (which is K2)
The strongest version
"The leather would be thrown away. Better to use the whole animal. Synthetic leather is plastic."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Cattle are slaughtered mainly for meat.
- P2If the hide weren't used, it would be thrown away.
- P3Using what would be thrown away is better than wasting it.
- CSo using leather causes no additional harm and is even a form of respect.
P1 is true for most cattle. P2 is partly true: there are times when hides are worth little. The problem lies in the conclusion: leather has economic value, and that value helps fund slaughter.
The argument is valid if leather had no value. Its soundness fails because it does.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument treats as disposable something that has a price:
Source of livestock revenue Weight Meat Most of it Leather Traditionally the most valuable byproduct; about 6% to 8% of a steer's value in the US, with large price swings Other byproducts (fat, bones, offal) The rest - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Leather has economic value.
It's sold to tanneries. When the price of hides falls, the price paid for cattle falls too, which shows it's part of the calculation.
2. Byproducts subsidize the main product.
Byproduct revenue lowers the cost of meat and makes livestock farming more profitable. Buying leather funds the system.
3. Not all leather comes from beef cattle.
Some leathers come from animals raised partly or mainly for their skin, such as crocodiles, ostriches and some goats.
4. Tanning pollutes heavily.
Chrome tanning produces toxic waste that pollutes rivers and affects workers in many countries.
5. There are alternatives.
Plant-based, recycled and better-quality synthetic materials are available, and choosing among them can take environmental impact into account.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Hide Staff Paper, AgEcon Search Traditionally, hides contributed about 6% to 8% of the total value of fed cattle in the US; in 2020, the share fell to about 1% Checked from the summary; the value varies widely with the market - d
The strongest counter-reply: leather is worth little today
The most serious version points out that in some recent years the value of hides fell so much that many were discarded, and that under those conditions using leather funds nothing.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The fall proves leather counts.
When hides are worth less, cattle are worth less: the revenue is part of the calculation.
Buying leather sustains demand.
It's precisely demand that keeps its value up.
The waste argument applies to meat too.
And it doesn't justify raising and killing more animals.
- f
Back to the moral question
Leather comes from the skin of an animal who was killed, and selling it helps pay for that death. If there are alternatives for clothing and shoes, the moral question remains: what justifies funding the slaughter?
Reasoning errors
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing the economics
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dichotomy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Making use as a justification
Biases
Motivated reasoning
Using everything seems noble and excuses the question
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if it's a byproduct, buying it doesn't fund the main activity".
If it applied to…Ivory from slaughtered elephantsTap to see
Buying it wouldn't fund poaching
That's why the trade was banned
If it applied to…Wild animal fursTap to see
They'd be acceptable if the animal died for some other reason
The market encourages hunting
If it applied to…LeatherTap to see
It wouldn't fund slaughter
The revenue exists
Contradictions
Even if it "would be thrown away".
Which shows it has value.
Without worrying about plastic.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that most cattle are slaughtered for meat, and that the value of hides is sometimes low. It's also true that some synthetic materials have an environmental impact, and that choosing among alternatives deserves attention.
But
But leather is part of livestock revenue, and buying it helps pay for slaughter. There are ways to dress and wear shoes without funding the death of animals.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after