"I am thinking about bringing a live lamb out to a park where people are cooking BBQ's on Australia day to help them make the connection. I will ask them if they want to pat the lamb, then I will question their morals in a clever way. This will be filmed for YouTube and then in turn would create a positive impact and influence others not to participate in the mass slaughter of baby lambs.
This sounds like
potentially good activism if he can pull it off.
However, he should be aware of all of the relevant laws; he might get arrested for bringing a "farm animal" into a public park where this is not allowed. Cities can have unreasonable restrictions on things like that. Some areas don't even allow live livestock in the city limits.
He should make sure to talk to the police about it first, and explain his plans in detail to make sure he doesn't run afoul of any ordinances, and possibly contact a lawyer.
My dilemma is I'm concerned that this could be considered borderline exploitation? But the use of the animal would be for a greater good.
The former concern is deontological, but the latter justification is consequential -- he's on the right track there. Use, or "exploitation" is not morally relevant as long as the animal is not being harmed. However, it's almost impossible to use an animal in this way with zero harm (or zero risk of harm), so the cost and benefit has to be considered.
This is the same benefit that organizations like zoos can provide for the public; exposure to animals may help people empathize, vs. never having met any. Although zoos (sanctuaries open to the public) with farmed animals may be more beneficial for modern animal concerns.
The trick is that the cost-benefit analysis in these situations is very difficult. How much good would it do? How much harm?
Zoos, in the way most are set up, probably do more harm to most of the animals than good to other animals.
Also there is a man selling live lambs for slaughter and was going to purchase the lamb which would save its life and it would then become my pet. Would this be considered supporting an unethical sheep breeder?"
It would, and that would be one of the harms involved in the cost-benefit analysis. If he can find a rescue, that would be much better.
Harms: Support for the breeder. Confinement for the animal (what kind of environment will the lamb be kept in most of the time as a pet?). Possible stress from being taken to the park and exposed to noise and unknown humans.
Benefits: Possibly encouraging some people to reduce meat consumption at the park. The video may do even more.
The only way to really weigh harms against benefits is to measure them. That means using surveys and the like to try to determine your impact.
Animal charity evaluators do a lot of that:
http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/
If he's not gathering that kind of information to do analysis on the impact of doing this, then I would recommend to not do it: In general, blind activism is more likely to be ineffective activism. But as long as he's exploring the possibilities this kind of activism provides and getting some solid numbers from surveys, even if it turns out not to be useful, the information gathered about the method would be.
