PETA and Holocaust, Essay Example

#1. The campaign was not ethical because it was intentionally meant to shock the audience and the campaign also wrongfully implied that there is no difference between Nazis and those people who eat meat. In other words, the campaign likened the meat-eaters to immoral and cruel killers. The campaign also abused its right to free speech by utilizing the suffering of a group for its own marketing purpose. The PETA’s PR department might not have intended it and probably didn’t even realize it but their marketing campaign actually seems to downplay the actions of the Nazi regime. PETA argues animal slaughter and holocaust are the same in essence and it is reasonable to assume that many holocaust victims and survivors also ate meat. If PETA’s argument is accepted then holocaust victims simply got punished for their crimes. PETA’s actions are also unethical because it is trying to force its beliefs on the society rather than asking for voluntary cooperation.

#2. PETA’s claims were not justified because no society in the world considers genocide of fellow human beings due to prejudice the same as slaughter of animals for consumption purposes. PETA was also wrong because the intentions behind Nazi’s actions and meat eaters are entirely different. Nazi’s wanted to kill all Jews for nothing but out of hate while animal slaughter takes place because meat is an essential component of human diet and provides many nutrients not found anywhere else. In fact, many vegetarians are forced to add meat to their diet for medical reasons because they cannot get certain nutrients from anywhere else.

#3. PETA’s decision to convey human suffering to a human audience, even if it might have been true, caused more harm because PETA antagonized opponents so much they would not even want to listen to PETA’s message. The campaign also painted PETA as a bully rather than someone looking for an honest conversation. In addition, the controversy surrounding the campaign also got the attention away from PETA’s primary message.

#4. Campaign’s tone overrode its message because instead of claiming that eating meat is wrong, PETA implied that meat eaters are cruel, immoral, insensitive, and no different from Nazis. PETA should have focused on the meat-eating issue but instead its message attacked the character and the values of the majority of the population. A message should promote dialogue instead of hostility and the focus should remain on the action rather than the doer.

#5. In America we enjoy freedom of speech and PETA’s campaign is protected under this right. PETA didn’t make any factually incorrect claims such as holocaust or the eating of meat by people. The opponents may not agree with PETA’s opinions but opinions cannot be legally prosecuted and are protected under free speech. The controversy surrounding the campaign is that opponents do not agree with how PETA interprets the actions of the meat eaters and how PETA’s campaign downplay the historical significance of the holocaust tragedy.

#6. The campaign damages PETA’s credibility because it paints PETA as insensitive, bully, and aggressive. It also paints PETA as an organization who is more interested in seeking attention rather than spreading its message. When a person’s character is attacked, he becomes defensive even if he may be wrong and PETA equated most of the population with Nazis which could be one of the most effective ways to ruin an organization’s reputation and credibility.