You are making a moral judgement not only about what you think is PETA’s intention, and an assessment that is lacking on the same grounds, you have no clue what they want to achieve, and how they measure success.
My moral judgement is different, which opens possibilities for other intentions on PETA’s site. Observing previous campaigns, I see a pattern (which I was not alone to notice).
Kapernick must have not gotten that message then:
I think that makes it pretty clear that they are not undervaluing that struggle to promote another struggle, what I believe they’re saying is: same struggle, same fight.
Of course, there may be, as @GulliverFoyle puts it “practical, deontological or consequentialist” arguments why you reject that.
But as I said above, that moral judgement is yours to make, I make another moral judgement that message because that message strongly resonates with me.
When I stopped eating meat decades ago, I learned simply mentioning that fact often triggers people into strong reactions, even though I just mad it known so we can pick a restaurant that works for everyone. But I understand that this challenges their lifestyle. The same happens with PETA’s ads, every single time (except for the one with autism, that was a stupid and utterly fucked up move on PETA’s part) people are given another chance to reflect their lifestyle and avoid that knee-jerk reaction that is also possible. I don’t know if it pays off in the long run, but I appreciate that experiment, because it might work better than what we’ve tried before.
