Regardless of how you feel about animal rights, this move by PETA to show up unannounced and uninvited at a Long Island elementary school to convince children that circuses mistreat their animals simply feels wrong-headed. Protesters reportedly handed out coloring books to children leaving for the day with stickers that read, “Circuses are no fun for animals” according to Newsday. “I just think targeting children this age is inappropriate, in my opinion,” Rodney Gilmore, Hempstead district assistant interim superintendent for elementary education tells the paper.
PETA assistant director Kristie Phelps defended the group’s actions, saying there was no harm done to children by showing up at a school to inform them about abuses endured by circus animals. She said that with the circus using “glittery” ads and ticket discounts, children and adults “deserve to know that elephants don’t naturally stand on their heads and bears don’t ride bicycles.”
Others disagree. “These children might go home and be very anxious,” Phyllis Ohr, a clinical psychologist at Hofstra University, tells the paper. “Children are less mature in their cognitive process.”
And of course, no sooner do I write this than I realize that doing so merely rewards this kind of attention seeking, ends-justify-the-means behavior….
Wow, that crosses the line IMHO. I sympathize with PETA’s concerns about the treatment of circus animals, but an elementary school is not the proper place for a protest. Picketing outside the venue hosting the circus, fine.
I think the problem is precisely that it’s *not true* that these tactics seem wrong-headed “regardless of how you feel about animal rights”. I think the tactics don’t seem wrong if you take a very, very strong view of animal rights, as PETA does. Because they can just flip the argument around and say, “Regardless of how you feel about the psychological resilience of young children, it seems wrong-headed to not educate them about abuse suffered by circus animals.”
Where you fall in this debate just depends on how heavily you weight the particular animal rights and child rights in question.
Sorry, Paul, but I disagree. I chose my words carefully. Making children the targets of a protest is over the line. The phrase two wrongs doesn’t make a right seems to apply. It’s not about animal rights vs. child rights, but about right vs. wrong. It’s irresponsible and as a PR matter damages their cause.
The phrase “two wrongs doesn’t make a right” is kind of meaningless, and not useful for ethical analysis. Similarly for “right vs. wrong”. All ethical arguments are about right vs. wrong! The question is, how are we determining what’s right and what’s wrong?
When you say it’s wrong, what you really mean is that you don’t think the wrongs that might be inflicted on circus animals justify the damage you believe was done to the kids. PETA disagrees, precisely because they take a different view of animal rights. It’s just not true that what you think of animal rights is irrelevant to how you evaluate the trade-off.
I also agree that these actions damage their cause, but that’s an empirical question, not an ethical one, and it’s a change of subject.
Not a whole lot turns on this debate we’re having, here, but I was a philosophy major, so it appeals to me.
Paul, your message seems to be that the ends justify the means – PETA “feels strongly” so they can engage in whichever tactics will help them succeed.
PETA can’t convince the parents and policy makers of their position, so they’ll hit those they think are easier to convince with propaganda.
If you’re a philosophy major, you should have no difficulty understanding why they’re wrong to do so.