PETA are ethical
Debate Rounds (5)
The very definition of 'ethical' is pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
PETA do this. I don't even see how it is possible to debate that PETA are unethical.
P.E.T.A ran a campaign called 'Holocaust On A Plate.' I mentioned this in my opening statement but I'd like to go into detail here. This campaign included showing images of death camps next to animals. I will grant you that animal abuse is bad but I draw the line at comparing the way we treat animals on livestock farms to places such as Auschwitz. That is disrespectful to every person who died in those camps, every one who lost people to those camps and every survivor. These people were put through torture, forced to endure pain beyond comparison and deal with psychological effects which would destroy the sanest man and you want to compare that to pigs and cows? That's not ethical. It's disrespectful towards humanity and I believe makes light of one of the, if not the darkest moments in human history. Using torture and genocide as marketing is unethical, plain and simple.
Also I will grant you that seeing animals killed for food is not a pretty sight but that's an aesthetic point, not a moral one.
P.E.T.A also would outlaw pets and guide dogs for the blind. Isn't that ethical? Taking away services for disabled people because it's wrong for animals to be kept as working pets. No, Outlawing services for the disabled is unethical.
Now then, Rodney Coronado. An arsonist is described by Ingrid Newkirk (the leader of P.E.T.A) as a 'fine young man'. If you can be a fine young man and an arsonist, what does it take to be a monster? Proof I hear you cry? P.E.T.A's tax records from July 1995 (when such actions took place) clearly show a payment of $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado Support Committee and a further $25,000 to Ray Cornonado (Rodney's dad). P.E.T.A - supporting arsonists for the animals.
I would also like to add a quote from Brian Levon (A scholar at the Center For The Study Of Hate and Extremeism)
"When you use violence and property destruction as a way to achieve reforms, well that's called terrorism."
At the end of the day, using violence, threats and harassment to achieve reforms is unethical. It's is morally wrong in the views of the law and the minds of sensible people. Comparing the killing of cows and pigs to the genocide of Jews during WW2 is unethical and disrespectful to human kind. Denying people the basic right to medicines that could save their lives is unethical but hey, if you're terminally ill and can't be cured because P.E.T.A banned medical research on animals, well I suppose you'll be happy right? Ban research on animals and you lose bio medical science and development. Oh and one more thing. P.E.T.A's tax records also show a cost of $9,370 on a walk in freezer. Why? To safely store the corpses of the animals they euthanize until they can be buried. In fact they killed 1325 out of the 2103 animals they took in during 2002.
These people are far from ethical.
I see a confusion in your line of thought. You are under the delusion that humans are superior to animals and that if anyone seeks to compare us to them we are being unethical and disrespectul to human kind. Comparing the pain suffered in Auschwitz to that of animals who are equally helpless and tortured to an equal, if not greater, extent is not disrespectful to humans it's merely showing how disrespectful and negligible we are to animals.
The second point you raise is that of PETA supporting the ALF. The issue is they are supporting ALF's ideals, they are not directly supporting their methods. They are fudning these terrorists for their cause blame the other party for their mishaps, don't look at the middle man. Does one blame a pharmaceutical institution for funding a crazed scientist? Mistakes happen. P.E.T.A. love animals they do not love terrorism. If you have two friends and one is violent, a drunkard and a rapist does that automatically make the other friend one too? By any means of logical reasoning, no it does not. PETA and ALF have an ideal in common, do not for one second think that PETA are in support of the methods ALF use unless you can explicitly quote a direct support of the violent methods, you have no such evidence to prove their support of the violence.
Thirdly, I would like to point out to you that your point about killing animals being an aesthetic issue and not a moral one comes from the point of view of a meat-eater. From the point of view of PETA the issue is a very moral one. They are absolutely ethically entitled to hold this moral and opinion on animal slaughter, this has nothing to do with your view on it not being moral nor PETA being ethical or unethical.
On another note, this debate is whether or not PETA are ethical you are beigning up the point about them being against pets and guide dogs. I would like to explain that jst because you see humans as more important than the dogs, PETA see the dogs as rightful to freedom as a human and despite this ethic not matching your ethic it has absoutely nothing to do with PETA being unethical, it merealy is a conflict between your perosnal choice of ethics and PETA's choice of ethics. Both of you are ethical but your ethics themself differ.
I do not mean to be rude nor obnoxious when I say this: Please educate yourself on an issue before making a point about it. The assisted killing of their animals being at almost 60% is because most of the animals PETA take in are abused and therefore often end up in a situation where they are better off dead. In fact I find the preservation and sentimental respect for the dead animals is very ethical, only further supporting the idea that PETA are ethical.
As a final point, the support in July 1995 of Rodney Coronado was a sponsorship made without the knowledge of what he would do with the money. They have not paid him or discussed him since. It was a mistake because they trusted that, having the same ideal as PETA, he would go about it in a similar fashion. They were fooled by him and his father to believe he was ethical until they realised the harm he caused. The quote you give was stated before his arnoist attacks.
In conclusion, none of the points you raise are valid to suggest why PETA are unethical, only as to why some people who share their ideal go about it in an unethical way or why your ethics conflict with PETAs ethics wince you believe humans to be superior to animals and PETA do not.
On the point of P.E.T.A being the middle man. Here is my argument. If you support a group that commit actions deemed unethical by all rational humans, you are unethical no matter what the reason for your support is. If you support the BNP because they'll collect your bins every week, you are choosing to overlook the racism because they share a similar view on one point. This of course is an example. I don't want anyone to think I'm calling P.E.T.A racist. I'm just using a comparison but I digress. I will grant you that I can't blame P.E.T.A for the actions of the A.L.F but I never did. My point is that they are unethical because they looked over the unnecessary & potentially fatal violence because they both share one view. This is unethical and hypocritical bearing in mind that one of the leaders of P.E.T.A actually uses medicine derived from animal products. I ask you, how can you be against animal research whilst benefiting from animal research?
On your third point that I can not prove that they approve of violence. Well:
PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich has said: "I think it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
The New Yorker noted in a 2003 profile of PETA founding president Ingrid Newkirk that "officially, PETA does not engage in violence, but its leaders wholeheartedly defend and encourage guerrilla groups like the Animal Liberation Front."
"We do not condemn nor condone it but we do understand it."
Three quotes from the vice president, facts retained from a profile of the President and a former employee of PETA. Put simply (by The Center For Consumerism)
"As long as national animal rights campaigners fail to openly, publicly, and unequivocally renounce violence, the threat will remain."
Continuing the rebuttal, I will agree with you that ethically they have the moral right to view killing animals for meat as bad but they also have the moral responsibility surely to show correctly run abattoirs? Granted it would make no difference because people would still be repulsed by what they saw but I bet they'd still have a burger.
Sorry to quote you but: "PETA see the dogs as rightful to freedom as a human and despite this ethic not matching your ethic it has absolutely nothing to do with PETA being unethical, it merealy is a conflict between your perosnal choice of ethics and PETA's choice of ethics. Both of you are ethical but your ethics themself differ."
I'd like to explain my view upon this. Are the dogs being tortured? Are the dogs being treated unfairly? Are they being beaten? In the vast majority of cases, no. If they aren't in any danger, why take them away? If it's because you want animals to be equally free, well, you're going to have to give animals responsibilities. With rights come responsibilities. Let me ask you. When the animals are free, what will you do if they bite people? What will you do if they kill one another for food? You give animals freedom, you become responsible for their responsibilities if that makes sense. So what will you do? You can't kill lock them up because that kind of defeats the point. If anything, taking animals away from loving homes is more unethical. I will grant you it's sad when animals are abused but If you take away the loving home and nurturing that most animals have, well you're subjecting them to the will of other animal and I guarantee you, they won't be as loving.
I would like to say to you 'OpinionatedMan' that I like you. As a person I like you. You are standing up for what you believe in and trying to not offend whilst doing so which is honorable, I am trying to do the same so no, I didn't think you were being rude but here's my issue. P.E.T.A are killing animals whilst attacking those who kill animals. They attacked a man who ran a shelter, one Jerry Greenwald and claimed that he was pointlessly killing animals but what they didn't report was the countless hours of work he spent trying to save the sixty three thousand strays/abused pets that he took in and he ran campaign after campaign locally to increase adoption and make pet owners aware of spaying etc but still he was attacked and threatened.
On the subject of Rodney Coronado - During his prosecution a federal prosecutor stated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk had foreknowledge of that crime. Even if she didn't have prior knowledge, why trust a man who openly confessed to thirteen arsons?
That's either disregard of ethics or foolishness.
It seems that we have finally found the fundamental difference in our views of ethics. You view ethics as an extension of what you financially support even if you do not actively partake in it. However, I must agree with you here; ethics are the concern of what one is doing to encourage the difference between right and wrong to be seen.
I shall begin with rebuttals before I move on to the constructive.
First of all, concentration camps treated humans like animals. There was literally no better treatment of them so from the point of view of treatment there is a perfectly logical progression form the concentration camp to a slaughterhouse of cows. It is nothing but an effective analogy, there is nothing unethical about it. Every analogy can offend someone, somehow. You can compare a musician to God; theists get offended, you can compare a fly to a pest; Jains get offended (Jains are people following the religion of Jainism where it believed all animals are absolutely equal). In fact some people might look at the analogy suggested by PETA and be offended that people dare to compare the disgusting race of humanity to a race as peaceful as the cow (this isn't sarcasm there are genuinely people who would pertain such a view). So my point is that any use of an analogy so as to justify PETA being unethical is irrelevant since all analogies can somehow be twisted to offend someone so you might as well say that anyone who uses an analogy is unethical, which in my opinion is a very juvenile way to furcate the world by ethics.
Secondly, you raise the point of humans being superior to animals merely because we are smarter, more determined, and have more knowledge. A simple point to deny is you say 'strength' now unless you mean strength of character I believe it is very blatant that we are far from being a strong race on the scale of all races. In fact the majority of animals we eat could defeat us if we fought without weapons. The main point I was trying to make was that PETA and you are both ethical, your ethic is not more or less right than theirs. PETA believe humans and animals to be equal you believe us to be superior PETA and you have different views but both are ethical since they clearly don't violate any moral codes and instead are moral codes themselves.
Thirdly, I would just like to point out that PETA might see all domestication of pets as wrong but the only pets that they physically remove from homes are that of neglected or abused animals. Therefore, despite their ideal of taking all animals and letting them free what they are actually doing is ethical because in practise they realise it is silly to remove a dog from a loving home. If your dream is anarchy, you are unlikely to actually let everybody do what they want, you'd only actually free the people you feel deserve it. One ideal or one quote doesn't define an organisation as a whole but if you must pick a quote then see their motto: "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment." source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
On another note, you did not set exact parameters of the debate so I don't know if using a video is an illegal move but I believe that if you want to use the quote ""I think it would be a great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." you must first watch this: if videos are not allowed, I apologise but to understand exactly what PETA want to see explode you must understand how unethical the enemy of PETA is. When we killed Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, two people who genuinely treated their victims far nicer than animals in slaughterhouses and fast-food owned farms do, no one saw the government as unethical and they are humans. However, when PETA want to use similar measures against the people who they see as terrorists, we suddenly blurt 'UNETHICAL MONSTERS'! If the hypocrisy is not apparent to you yet, then watch the video, it is more proof than you shall ever need.
PETA might support their 'brotherly' corporations but that, by no means, suggests that they support the way they do things. If your son, that you raised, grows up to have similar views as you on the cure of a disease and so you invest in him to cure a disease but then he tortures animals and kills competitors to cure it, are you unethical for loving him for the cure? For continually funding him hoping that he finds the cure and can assist the human race no matter what? Are you unethical for not being involved with what he does only the cure? If you answer yes, then it is you who is sorely mistaken in the understand of ethics. One ethical person can be friends with a million rapists, their best friend can be a psychopathic serial killer with paedophilic tendencies, and yet if they both work together to an ethical cause and if the friend helps their serial killing, paedophilic friend towards the same course I do not see how the ethical friend suddenly is unethical. PETA fund ALF to save animals, ALF use that funding to save animals. The issue with ALF is, patronisingly, an issue with ALF! Not an issue with PETA.
Violence to get what you want, in the premises of this debate can be considered unethical. Nonetheless, PETA are not violent. They may be very aggressive with unauthorised collection of stray animals, such as Jerry Greenwald, but aggression doesn't mean they are unethical it means they as passionate and ruthless with being ethical at any cost.
In conclusion, PETA are very ethical people with a great passion for the freedom and saving of animal lives. What the people who they fund for their cause choose to do is nothing to do with PETA, PETA fund animal savers of all types. You forgot the fact that, regarding the 2001, Earth Liberation Front involving ALF, PETA spokesperson Newkirk states "The donation was a mistake, and the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat" source: http://en.wikipedia.org... (click on the subtitle 'Positions' for the quote in the second or third paragraph).
If you have any emotion, any empathy and any moral codes. You would see that PETA are a very ethical organisation.
I do have emotion, empathy and moral codes. Hence why I can not condone PETA's actions.
On the point of concentration camps. There is a difference. All concentration camps kept people in terrible conditions, they disregarded human rights and weren't monitored by sensible, ethical people who had the health and safety of the victims in mind. Plus concentrations camps were created and used because of the warped views of one evil, hate filled man where as livestock farms are used for essential resources obtained from the killing of animals however the process of killing is handled badly.
There is a beautiful thing called the 'Federal Animal Welfare Act' that was put in place to prevent the abuse of animals. Do some farms slide into unethical treatment? Yes, I'll give you that. Will they be corrected and punished? You bet they will. It may take time but if reports are put in, investigations will take place and places will be shut down. Abuse is evil but it does not justify PETA's slander, hypocrisy and disregard for freedom of humans. Is there a logical progression? There is a small, minute progression yes but it does not excuse the trivialization of one of the world's darkest moments. Also, it's not an effective analogy, it's undignified juxtaposition. Finally on this point, the ability to twist an analogy does not take away the offensiveness of a separate analogy.
"the majority of animals we eat could defeat us if we fought without weapons." I'm sorry but this is hyperbole, plain and simple.
"The main point I was trying to make was that PETA and you are both ethical, your ethic is not more or less right than theirs." Actually this can be debated. I don't slander and protest against people who kill animals, whilst killing animals. We've discussed this before and I believe the figure you stated was '60%'. I advise you take a look at the reports obtained by 'The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services'
I don't offend people's religious beliefs as a means to inspire support of a hypocritical, shady cause:
I have never killed animals and dumped their bodies in dumpsters:
You see. My ethics involve being a good person and enjoying my freedoms. I do not pretend to be a good guy whilst actually being a bad guy. I do not change my beliefs to suit an argument and I do not, nor will ever deny my fellow human the right to potential future medicines.
"they clearly don't violate any moral codes and instead are moral codes themselves." - They needlessly kill animals that could be saved, they use sensationalized imagery to incite anger and hatred, they are possibly some of the biggest hypocrites I have ever had the misfortune of coming across and they twist their beliefs to fit a situation. There is a difference between situationalist and flawed ideas.
"Thirdly, I would just like to point out that PETA might see all domestication of pets as wrong but the only pets that they physically remove from homes are that of neglected or abused animals. Therefore, despite their ideal of taking all animals and letting them free what they are actually doing is ethical because in practise they realise it is silly to remove a dog from a loving home." - If I may, I would like to present a quote from Ingrid Newkirk taken from a convention:
"Our goal is total animal liberation and the day when everyone believes that animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to experiment and not ours for entertainment or any other exploitative purpose."
You can't get clearer than that. The exact definition is all animals in captivity by any means and reason will be set free to live life be their own accord and wishes. ALL ANIMALS, this comes directly from Ingrid Newkirk. They're not picking and choosing. Unless of course Ingrid Newkirk is wrong about what she said and if so, what else is she wrong about? It's not just the abused animals they'd remove at least, not by what the leader says.
"to understand exactly what PETA want to see explode you must understand how unethical the enemy of PETA is." - We've all seen the footage. However two wrongs do not make a right. Yes the abuse is evil but that does not justify the promotion of violence and acts of terror.
"Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, two people who genuinely treated their victims far nicer than animals in slaughterhouses and fast-food owned farms do" - That statement is possibly one of the most foolish statements I have ever come across, I was going to leave it alone but I had to actually highlight the fact that you are comparing the dictator Saddam Hussein to livestock farms. This is a long quote but I have to use it just so people know exactly what you're comparing the process of killing animals of food to:
"After a few days in these camps, the men accused of being insurgents were trucked off to be killed in mass executions.
In its book Iraq's Crime of Genocide, Human Rights Watch/Middle East writes: "Throughout Iraqi Kurdistan, although women and children vanished in certain clearly defined areas, adult males who were captured disappeared in mass ... It is apparent that a principal purpose of Anfal was to exterminate all adult males of military service age captured in rural Iraqi Kurdistan. Only a handful survived the execution squads. Even amidst this most systematic slaughter of adult men and boys, however, "hundreds of women and young children perished, too though the causes of their deaths were different -- gassing, starvation, exposure, and willful neglect -- rather than bullets fired from a Kalashnikov.Nevertheless, on September 1, 2004, U.S. forces in Iraq discovered hundreds of bodies of Kurdish women and children at the site near al-Hatra, believed to be executed in early 1988 or late 1987"
The reason no one complained about ethics when they were executed? They unjustly, inhumanely killed thousands of people because of the view of one evil man. We kill chickens and cows for food just sometimes it's handled badly. There is a difference.
"PETA fund ALF to save animals, ALF use that funding to save animals. The issue with ALF is, patronisingly, an issue with ALF! Not an issue with PETA." - As well as other terrorist groups such as Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified "domestic terrorist" group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats etc etc. My point is this. If I fund a business and I find out it's dealing in shady business? I STOP FUNDING AND SUPPORTING. To use your analogy of the ethical man and the pedophile, he's only unethical if he doesn't act to stop or distance himself from the pedophile.
"unauthorized collection of stray animals, such as Jerry Greenwald," - Unauthorized? He runs a shelter that takes in abused and stray animals, you know, like PETA are supposed to.
"aggression doesn't mean they are unethical it means they as passionate and ruthless with being ethical at any cost." - We are a world governed by laws. Violence and intimidation are never an acceptable substitute for the democratic political process, or for substantive public debate and also Violence is not a civilized tool for changing minds; it's a sign that some activists have lost the debate and are trying to force their views on others.
"You forgot the fact that, regarding the 2001, Earth Liberation Front involving ALF, PETA spokesperson Newkirk states "The donation was a mistake, and the money had been intended for public education about destruction of habitat" - What, did they not learn from the previous arsons before funding?
My point - PETA are either unethical hypocrites or fools. Or both.
I would like to open with a quote from the official PETA site at http://www.peta.org.... The quote is '"The ALF," which is simply the name adopted by people acting illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF "raids" have provided proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise.' it explains exactly what PETA's view on the ALF is and why ethics and law are not inseparable. A further quote form the site is 'Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law in order to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are both examples of people breaking the law in order to combat injustice.' therefore it has justified that despite breaking property to get their point across, they did it to empty buildings and uncovered truths that were hidden from us, now the law has become less ethical than the breakers of it.
Also, give me an example where PETA removed a pet form a loving home? It is their right to believe that all forms of domestication is wrong but as long as they leave the ones in non-abused circumstances alone, they are being ethical.
I don't see how the killing that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden carried out is worse than the torture and mutilation of animals occurring in farmhouses. Hens have their beaks clipped to avoid cannibalism when fighting for space to lay eggs in a three-to-one caging system where one hen is so fat it fills half of the cage (so one hen always is toppled around the other two). Piglets have their ears mutilated at birth so that more food can fatten up other areas of the body (stupid but very true.) Cows are hung upside-down BY ONE LEG ONLY and are fully alive and conscious while it occurs. You are sick in the head, and a very unethical person, if you support this. I am a vegetarian although I eat fish from time to time since I observe that they are killed efficiently and show little sign of actually being conscious (I don't eat endangered fish such as herring or shark). This is all sourced form the video of my round three debate.
Also it's unreasonable and very bad debating conduct to merely call someone a fool. You cannot say PETA are possibly fools since there is not objective and inoffensive way to measure foolishness. That is your opinion based on your view of PETA's actions there is no need to bring insults to the table.
Also stop with this irrelevant analogy of concentration camps, it is in fact a very accurate analogy and your view of humans being more important than animals should be left out of this debate. That is your opinion, not a fact.
In conclusion you offer no solid evidence to show PETA as being unethical, only that your and their ethics do not match.
On your first point, whilst I agree that sometimes violence can be necessary I also believe that it should only be used for one reason.
It is literally THE ONLY OPTION.
If you can protest for investigation, If you can campaign for federal agencies to look at the clinics and research facilities, you have no right to use violence and claim it's ok because people who actually needed to use it, used it. Violence is not a tactic, It's a last resort.
"It is their right to believe that all forms of domestication is wrong but as long as they leave the ones in non-abused circumstances alone, they are being ethical." Apart from the fact that in a PETA world they wouldn't pick and choose. You're right by saying it'd be ethical to leave the animals from loving households but my point is that that's not what PETA are saying. They're after TOTAL ANIMAL LIBERATION. That's not picking and choosing, that's EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL. This is straight from Ingrid Newkirk. If she meant that she'd pick an choose, why didn't she say that? Why did she instead say "Total Animal Liberation."?
"You are sick in the head, and a very unethical person, if you support this" So because some places treat the process of killing animals badly, I should be classified as sick? I support eating meat one hundred percent but I do understand that it is sometimes handled badly and yes I do feel bad about but I refuse to let that drag down the idea of eating meat.
"Also it's unreasonable and very bad debating conduct to merely call someone a fool." I admit that yes it's bad debating conduct but so is claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with you has a warped view of ethics, compassion and emotion. However I would like to say that I agree it is my view of PETA so why shouldn't I speak my mind? Heck, if PETA are allowed to act in such a way to anyone who argues with them, why shouldn't those arguing against them? Why is only unacceptable when the con side does it?
"Also stop with this irrelevant analogy of concentration camps," I will stop when PETA and their supporters stop.
"In conclusion you offer no solid evidence to show PETA as being unethical, only that your and their ethics do not match."
I offer you the UNNECESSARY use of violence, Slander of good, hardworking people and hyperbole to cause fear and anger.
OpinionatedMan forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: It's unfortunate Pro couldn't finish the debate
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.