. Make the case that this video promotes a prurient interest. The fact that they are shooting the video with Alicia Silverstone naked proves that the video promotes a prurient interest. . Assuming the video promotes a prurient interest, who should feel ethically ashamed of their action: Silverstone, PETA, the viewers, some combination, someone else? I do not feel anyone should be ashamed for what they did. Part of how PETA operates is to raise awareness so if they can get your attention then I do not see why not. Silverstone could have filmed her monologue with her clothes on. Make the case that she should have because her decision to strip down to get attention results in her objectification. She is using her body as an object of desire. She is selling herself for her sexiness instead of her merit. She could have simply announced her support for PETA. In terms of the ethics of objectification, is there any difference between letting people see you in a video and on a nude beach? Why or why not? When you publish a video of you nude it is on the internet forever. If you're on a nude beach it's not to be seen as "nude" but freer. PETA is a respected nonprofit organization (which isn't to say everyone agrees with their methods and cause, only that most respect their dedication and altruism). Does that give them a license to objectify Silverstone? Why or why not? No I do not feel anyone has a right to objectify someone. Although I do think that the reasons, they did what they did are virtuous I do not believe this was the only way. Should this book's web page include a link to watch the video? Justify your answer in ethical