In 2003, Animal Rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched a campaign titled "Holocaust On Your Plate" with a traveling set of images showcasing the similarities between holocaust survivors and animals in slaughter houses, with the most graphic images being displayed in Berlin, Germany.
Ethically, PETA used the exploitation of an already discriminated group of minority individuals to enforce their ideology. In a sense, they re-victimized the families involved in the Holocaust (meaning "burnt sacrifice" in Hebrew). There was extreme backlash to the images from multiple Jewish communities and human rights campaigns alike. With lawsuits resulting in the banning of PETA campaigning within the European Court of Human Rights.
But was it truly unethical? Human beings are known for not wanting to accept their faults or the pain they inflict on others. Humans will often argue that the feelings, emotions and sensations we feel, are not felt in animals. But how would we know unless we could become an animal and then human again? The argument against PETA, saying it was not an act of "freedom of speech," was backed up with the deontelogical viewpoint in ethics, stating that the comparison of animal and human suffrage was unethical and therefore not protected under freedom of speech.
If we are to truly understand the underlying problem, it is not another one of PETA's shocking campaigns that will send the message. It is the education and research that will come from it. If a human being could never inflict so much suffering and pain onto another human being, why would you feel okay to do it to an animal? The answer falls within the truth behind the animal industry. Animals are forced to be raped and held down in metal contraptions created by humans, separated from their offspring, starved, beaten, locked in unsanitary housing, left to die, and often have parts of their bodies removed if they cause any lack in revenue to the farmer.
The comparison of humans to animals is enough of a shock factor to catch the attention of humans across the globe. In a sense, this campaign was brilliant. It brought attention to PETA and their mission, the holocaust and its survivors, and the mistreatment of animals in the livestock industry.
It is the inherit belief that we as humans are superior to other humans, animals, or mother nature that is detrimental to our society. We as viewers, journalists and humans, must understand that the re-victimization and harm inflicted on the holocaust survivors, families, and Jewish communities deem this campaign unethical. You can not use the exploitation and harm of a certain religious community, race, gender, or sexual orientation to further prove your point. If the message is strong enough and meaningful, it will stand on its own.
Ethically, PETA used the exploitation of an already discriminated group of minority individuals to enforce their ideology. In a sense, they re-victimized the families involved in the Holocaust (meaning "burnt sacrifice" in Hebrew). There was extreme backlash to the images from multiple Jewish communities and human rights campaigns alike. With lawsuits resulting in the banning of PETA campaigning within the European Court of Human Rights.
But was it truly unethical? Human beings are known for not wanting to accept their faults or the pain they inflict on others. Humans will often argue that the feelings, emotions and sensations we feel, are not felt in animals. But how would we know unless we could become an animal and then human again? The argument against PETA, saying it was not an act of "freedom of speech," was backed up with the deontelogical viewpoint in ethics, stating that the comparison of animal and human suffrage was unethical and therefore not protected under freedom of speech.
If we are to truly understand the underlying problem, it is not another one of PETA's shocking campaigns that will send the message. It is the education and research that will come from it. If a human being could never inflict so much suffering and pain onto another human being, why would you feel okay to do it to an animal? The answer falls within the truth behind the animal industry. Animals are forced to be raped and held down in metal contraptions created by humans, separated from their offspring, starved, beaten, locked in unsanitary housing, left to die, and often have parts of their bodies removed if they cause any lack in revenue to the farmer.
The comparison of humans to animals is enough of a shock factor to catch the attention of humans across the globe. In a sense, this campaign was brilliant. It brought attention to PETA and their mission, the holocaust and its survivors, and the mistreatment of animals in the livestock industry.
It is the inherit belief that we as humans are superior to other humans, animals, or mother nature that is detrimental to our society. We as viewers, journalists and humans, must understand that the re-victimization and harm inflicted on the holocaust survivors, families, and Jewish communities deem this campaign unethical. You can not use the exploitation and harm of a certain religious community, race, gender, or sexual orientation to further prove your point. If the message is strong enough and meaningful, it will stand on its own.
Comments
Post a Comment