People for the Unethical Treatment of Humans:
A Challenge to PETA's Ethicality
The dictionary definition of the word ethical is, pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality or pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. The word ethical has been thrown around on a regular basis throughout the ages, but its most well-known usage in the modern world is attached to a group named PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Most everyone has seen or at the least heard about the exploits of these radical animal rights activists, usually the tales involve throwing blood on people wearing leather and fur or protesting outside the KFC; however it must be asked, are their methods or actions truly ethical? Proponents of the group point to such "victories" as getting Raley's Grocery Company to stop selling live lobsters in its stores and convincing Ann Taylor stores to stop carrying full fur and fur-trimmed products. Some will even point to PETA's mission statement itself and say that the idea of "total animal liberation" is one of the loftiest and most noble goals of the 21st century. However, a close examination of PETA reveals that their organization is basd around hypocrisy, fear-mongering, and the devaluing of human life and rights. Knowing that PETA's core ideas are based around these three things it can be said that either PETA has forgotten that ethical is the keyword in their name or that they never knew the meaning of the word in the first place.
PETA's biggest and most well known movement is agains animal cruelty and the campaign against all forms of animal death. It's an undeniably admirable aim, after all who in their right mind would wish harm upon animals such as dogs or cats. However, it is in this very arena that PETA's first major hypocrisy is revealed. Searching through PETA's spending reports which, due to the tax-exempt status PETA enjoys are required to be available to the public, there are a few unusual purchases. The most prominent among these, as revealed by Penn and Teller on their television show Bullshit, is the purchase of a walk-in freezer for $9,370, this size of freezer is good for only three things, storage of meat products, dairy products, or cadavers. Since the majority PETA members are vegans , and thus don't eat meat or dairy products that only leaves one option, but why would PETA need a place to store dead bodies? The answer lies in yet another set of PETA records. As they take in animals, and claim that their headquarters is a shelter for animals, they were required to provide records of the animals adopted out to other homes and the animals which died. Since this is PETa, surely there'd be few if any deaths other than those occuring naturally due to old age and sickness. However, this is not the case. The Center for Consumer Freedom revealed that since 1995 PETA has taken in 17,806 pets and has euthanized 14,419; yes, PETA kills animals. About eighty percent of them to be exact, how then can the people of PETA claim that this practice is "ethical"? After all, society frowns upon the unnecessary killing of dogs and cats; the Michael Vick trial is proof enough of that.
PETA president Ingrid Newkirk offers this statement as the reason for their high death rate, "Sometimes the only kind option is to put animals to sleep, forever." Certainly in a select few animals that are clearly in an immense amount of pain this is acceptable. To believe that 80 percent of animals given to PETA fall into this category is nothing short of insane however. Many pet owners have claimed that they gave their pets to PETA after being led to believe that their animals would be adopted out to a good home, but were later shocked to find that their animal had been put down. The truth is that PETA could become a no-kill shelter immediately, however they refuse to becausee they have other financial interests, Ingrid Newkirk herself has admitted to this saying, "If we became a no-kill shelter we would do less work." What good is the work they do when for every animal they save they are killing one at their main offices though? How can they claim an ethical and morally superior position when they refuse to save the cats and dogs they were trusted with because they need the money to harass people eating at the KFC? This is not ethical, this is pure hypocrisy.
Although the hypocrisy of the organization is one of its major pitgfalls, it is the organizations habit of fear-mongering and hateful ad campaigns, statements, speechs, and actions which show how truly unethical PETA is. PETA supporters are of the mindset that any publicity is good publicity, which leads them to publish ad campaigns such as "Your Mommy Kills Animals" and "Your Daddy Kills Animals." The covers to these campaign leaflets depict a mother smothered in blood stabbing a squirming rabbit and a father slashing a defenseless fish down the belly as its internal organs cascade out in a stream of blood and guts. On the inside of these pamphlets are statements such as "Since your daddy is teaching you the wrong lessons about right and wrong, you should teach him fishing is killing. Until your daddy learns it's not fun to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals, they could be next." How can they in good conscience distribute this to children knowing that it is telling kids that their parents are going to murder their beloved pets once when their backs are turned? The action is simply deplorable no matter what amount of publicity it draws, it is both immoral and unethical.
PETA also uses the fear of disease to sway people to a vegan "animal-friendly," form of life with ad campaigns claiming that meat causes impotence in men. This statement though true in some aspects, fails to tell the whole story. Dr. James Barada, a former board member on the urological panel which developed the guidelines on how to treat impotence and erectile dysfunction in men made this assertion about the validity of PETA's claim in a 1999 edition of the Salon online newspaper, "One of the recognized risk factors for E.D. is long-term elevated cholesterol which affects cardiovascular system and which can be a side effect of a high meat diet. However, that's not the only cause of E.D. PETA's assertion may be appropriate but how significant a role it plays is open to debate." Other examples of this fear-dependent advertising can be found in statemets by PETA members and affiliates who have made such claims as eating fish will decrease brain power and is equivalent to poision. Another of the organizations favorite claims is that drinking milk causes prostate cancer; this claim emerged after Rudi Giuliani, who has recovered from his cancer, appeared in a "Got milk" advertisement. This exploitation of the medical problems of a public figure is unforgivable and shows a true disregard for human life and people as a whole.
"PETA cares about animals, not humans" is a popular statement amongst people who do not support the ideals of PETA, and for the large part it is true. Though PETA members claim they want to speak up for the rights of those who can't speak for themselves, why should that mean that they are entitled to incite violence and devalue the rights and lives of humans who can speak for themselves? The most obvious examples of this devaluing come once more in the form of PETA ad campaigns and statements from high ranking members of their group. The latest ad campaign is called "The Holocaust on your plate," in this campaign PETA juxtaposes pictures of Jewish individuals stacked on top of each other in too-small sleeping quarters next to chickens in coops. The comparison of the death of millions of Jews to the plight of chickens is nothing short of abhorrent, and sadly it doesn't stop there. Ingrid Newkirk stated in a speech to an animal rights convention that "Slavery is not over in the western world or the world in general, animals are today's slaves." PETA claims that seeing-eye dogs are a prime example of animal enslavement, and that anybody who has a pet is the equivalent of a slave owner. To equate the worldwide shame of slavery, to a seeing-eye dog is nothing short of ridiculous.
Although the emotional disregard for humanity is evident and unfortunate, it is the physical violence and intimidation which stands as PETA's worst crime. Within PETA's records lies a series of donations to one of the most famous radical animal rights activists of the modern era, Rodney Coronado. This would be acceptable, however; Coronado is a member of ALF (The Animal Liberation Front), an FBI listed terrorist organization. Furthermore Coronado has been arrested previously for the fire-bombing of a Michigan laboratory where animal testing was occuring, as well as confessing to six other arson attakcs. Coronado has been noted to give speeches to college students where he gives out information on how to make "crude incendiary devices," or what everyone else calls bombs, out of milk jugs, oil, and gasoline. PETA's exact stand on the use of violence is flimsy at best, with their exact statement being that "We neither condemn, nor condone it, we only understand it." There are however; many members of the group such as Pamela Ferdan, who stated on Penn and Tellers Bullshit, that "Violence and non-violence are not moral stands, they're tactics." This is a clear promotion of violence, a stand which is indispensible on its own and doubly so in the realm of ethics.
There are a lot of things that can be said about PETa, and there is no denying that their original aims are admirable. Unfortunately, the organization has failed to live up to a key part of its name; it has failed to be ethical in any regard. The fact that PETA treats the animals it supposedly shelters in a manner that they would undoubtedly rally agains if it were anyone other than their employees carrying it out proves they don't stick by their principles. The substitution of animal rights for human rights is neith humane nor fair and it contradicts one of Ingrid Newkirk's favorite sayings "A dog is a cat is a pig is a boy." If her organization were to follow that mantra, then humans would be placed alongside animals in their eyes and would undoubtedly make the group more palatable and assuming it would put a stop to their devaluing of human life, far more ethical.