What is the difference between wearing a fur coat and eating a grilled chicken sandwich? Both actions require the termination of animal life; both are not necessary (one could wear a down coat or eat a tofu burger). However, I resist placing them on the same plane of acceptability. Eating a chicken sandwich just does not feel as inappropriate as wearing a fur coat.
In order to continue this discussion, it is imperative to establish what I find inappropriate in eating a grilled chicken sandwich or wearing a fur coat. The taking of another animal's life for my own whims is the crux of the impropriety. I do not feel that my desire of the hour should allow me to abet the death of a fellow member of the animal kingdom. Why? Because it gives me far more power in terms of life and death than I would wish anyone to have, regardless of whether that person is or is not me.
Then, how is eating a chicken better than wearing a fur coat? Is it merely an issue of class warfare? That is, am I just angry that only rich people can afford a fur coat and, thus, for me, the fur coat has become an outward symbol of the unnecessary, overly decadent, and, perhaps, personally unattainable, lifestyle of the ridiculously rich? The answer to that is, simply put, no. The more complex answer is that I have no problems with the other things rich people do: purchase clothing at expensive stores, have meals at delightfully extravagant restaurants, establish offshore bank accounts to shelter their income from US taxation, the list goes on. Seriously, none of the above bother me; I take them all as part and parcel of the total richness package. You can have your expensive dinner, but then you also have to deal with the problem of placing your money somewhere it won't "leak". So, based on the above, I can safely say that I do not see myself as a class warrior.
If not class warfare, what is it? Could it be some sort of instinctual feeling that meat=food whereas fur!=clothing? Do I find some weird hunter-gatherer rationalization every time I see people eating meat which is lacking for the fur-wearers? That is an interesting supposition. It certainly fits with another fact I have not mentioned yet: I find wearing leather shoes/boots rather acceptable. Could it be that I have some inherited memory of my ancestors wearing leather foot coverings and eating meat off the skewer that allows me to continue in my non-vegetarian, leather-boot-wearing ways? The answer to that, I think, is no. Fur must have been worn rather often during the days of the hunter-gatherers. While not a social statement regarding one's status, fur did keep one warm, even during the ice age. So, to assert that fur was less a part of my hunter-gatherer ancestry than leather shoes would be a false statement. Therefore, it is not an instinctual feeling that allows me to eat meat but not wear fur.
Ultimately, it comes down to economy and respect. That is, a fur coat does not seem as economical in its solution to the problem it addresses as meat or a leather boot. Less abstractly speaking, a hunk of meat goes much further to resolve the issue of a lack of protein in one's diet than any other form of protein available to me: lentils, tofu, etc. (certainly, I could bring in the issue of aesthetics and point out how horrible tofu tastes, but that would defeat my argument). In much the same way, a leather boot will outlast almost any other form of extreme weather shoe wear by a long shot because, and this is rather unsurprising, it is made out of the stuff that animals wore to protect them from the elements their entire lives - skin. Fur, on the other hand, could be replaced by all sorts of "more economical" warmth-preserving objects: woolen coats, down jackets, goose feather parkas, even leather jackets. I say even leather jackets because leather is an animal product, one that kills the animal, despite which it is better than fur because it is more economical than a fur coat. How so? It takes far fewer total animal lives to synthesize a leather jacket as compared to a fur coat. So far, I have only talked about the economy aspect of the issue. But the leather jacket comparison brings in the respect aspect. It shows respect for the sacrifice of the animal lives being made for one's warmth/nutrition/etc to minimize the overall effect one's life has on other animals. That is, the less animals I kill to continue functioning the better. Of course, I could become a vegetarian, but, in my thinking, that detracts from the economy side of the equation. Thus, a careful balance of economy and respect may explain why eating meat and not buying fur clothing seem perfectly consistent to me.
Do I ultimately buy this ultimate explanation of my stated moral dillema? I would have to say yes. Sure, there are other ways of explaining why fur is wrong (ie, anal electrocutions, wire cages, psychological anguish, overall cuteness of chinchillas, etc), but really, all those are just appeals to any emotional attachment one may have to small furry animals. Also, many of those same reasons (the ones in parentheses just above) would also apply to eating meat and it will be a cold day in hell before I give up on the fine taste of a leg of lamb... Cheers.