Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7) In 2003, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched a new campaign, named “Holocaust on Your Plate,” that compares the slaughter of animals for human use to the murder of 6 million Jews in WWII. The campaign centers around the power of emotion, and Lisa Lange, the vice president of PETA communications, stated that “The idea for the effort came from the late Nobel Prize-winning author Isaac Bashevis Singer, who wrote: ‘In relation to them [animals], all people are Nazis; for them it is an eternal Treblinka’ — a death camp in Poland” Is “Holocaust on Your Plate” ethically wrong or a truthful comparison? Critically Comment.(250 words)

Topic: Case Studies

7) In 2003, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched a new campaign, named “Holocaust on Your Plate,” that compares the slaughter of animals for human use to the murder of 6 million Jews in WWII. The campaign centers around the power of emotion, and Lisa Lange, the vice president of PETA communications, stated that “The idea for the effort came from the late Nobel Prize-winning author Isaac Bashevis Singer, who wrote: ‘In relation to them [animals], all people are Nazis; for them it is an eternal Treblinka’ — a death camp in Poland”

Is “Holocaust on Your Plate” ethically wrong or a truthful comparison? Critically Comment.(250 words)

Reference

Why this question

The question forms a part of case studies portion/ aspect of GS 4 syllabus/ question paper.

Key demand of the question.

The question wants us to dig deep into the issue and analyze the ethical issues involved in it. We have to form a personal opinion on the issue based on our discussion.

Directive word

Critically Comment- We have to look at both the aspects of the act- Why it is right and why it is wrong. We have to argue in favour of both of them. Based on our discussion, we have to form a personal opinion on the issue.

Structure of the answer

Introduction – Mention that such ethical dilemmas are common in our world and sometimes we are enticed to go through any means to achieve something of value to us.

Body

  1. Discuss why the act is right- e.g it will achieve the noble end of protecting animal rights and life, save them from cruelty, motivate people more emotionally and better  etc.
  2. Discuss why the act is wrong- wrong means for right ends is not always justified, it makes the issue proportionately much more emotional thereby liable to exploit rather than guide human behaviour, sets a wrong precedent, etc.

Conclusion- Form a fair, concise and a balanced conclusion based on your discussion.

CategoriesINSIGHTS