This is another common cry from the animal rights front. It is important to realize that adjectives such as "majestic" and "intelligent" are highly subjective. Is a mink any more intelligent than a tuna? What exactly is so majestic about a chinchilla? Buying fur coats is not "cruel" as the animal is already dead. Besides, even if 90% of the people who consider buying fur coats would suddenly change their minds, there would still be 10% of the world who would continue to do so. Fur-bearing animals are farm raised specifically for the production of clothing. Is this a peculiar thing to do? Probably. Is it cruel? Probably not. Once again, "cruel" is a subjective term. To some, caging animals in any form, whether it be in fur-farms, or in circuses and zoos can be considered cruel. Others would consider the suppression of their right to display their wealth and success to be cruel. A man works 18 hours a day, six days a week for twenty years in order to make something of himself. He is proud of his accomplishments and wishes to display his achievements in the form of luxury items. So he buys a luxury car and a mink stole and a gold watch. He deserves those items, as he has worked hard for them. Should he be prevented from doing so because some people consider the wearing of fur to be cruel, the luxury car to pollute the environment, and the flashy gold watch to contribute to class rivalry that exists in our society? We have a natural right to pursue happiness as long as we don't prevent other humans from doing the same. The constitution and natural moral law doesn't mention the mink.