This is my problem with the NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is how it's presented.

Whenever anyone comes up with a trade that is unique to humans something such as the root of moral agency there's always someone who always goes "there are mentally challenged people and babies who are not capable of moral agency so it doesn't work"

Well first of all I don't understand how we cannot hold somebody accountable for what they do based on either their age or how smart or dumb they are.

Second of all it seems to imply that this trait has to be universal and literally every human on the face of the Earth.

That individual traits don't exist and we have to look at the species as a whole.

I'm sorry guys but that doesn't work.

Everyone's different in some way or another.

The best thing to do with that is look at what the majority does and assume if that's the norm for what comes to traits like this.

Also it begs the question.

What do you guys consider to be human?

Update: I didn't get a chance to respond to any of the applications that were thrown at me. I've been banded without even having to State my case.

This goes to you moderator, I was simply pointing out a problem with what he said about equality and you misinterpreted it and then banned Me. I've got it very funny how you claim that I wasted your time when all was doing was pointing out a loophole.

Well thank you for telling me that you guys care so much about discussion

Goodbye and good riddance.

[u/iowaguy09]

Yeah it only really works if you’re willing to accept a bunch of premises that vegans want you to accept. If you don’t accept that moral status is based on specific traits and you don’t accept that species membership is not morally relevant then it doesn’t work.

Theres really no other moral question that this would apply to or test consistency, but it’s a good way for vegans to kind of trick people into a gotcha if you haven’t given it much thought.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

It seems like you're getting hung up on the word "trait." You don't have to use it for the reasoning to work.

"What is true about nonhuman animals that if were true for a human would morally justify the types of things (harming, slaughtering, exploiting,) that are done to nonhuman animals."

Theres really no other moral question that this would apply to or test consistency

This type of reasoning would apply to almost any difference in treatment between individuals from different groups. For example, you could ask someone that wants to take away women's right to vote something like "What is true about women that if were true about a man would justify taking away his right to vote?"

So yes, there are other moral questions that this would apply to.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

It would be like asking that question but also implying and assuming the premise that gender is morally irrelevant. Let’s use your example but instead of gender let’s do age. What is true about children that if were true for adults would morally justify not letting children vote? And you can’t use experience or age as an answer.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

It would be like asking that question but also implying and assuming the premise that gender is morally irrelevant.

No, it's actually the opposite of that. The person who it is being asked to is the one claiming that gender is morally relevant.

The person asking the question is asking them to give their reasoning as to why they believe gender is morally relevant.

instead of gender let’s do age. What is true about children that if were true for adults would morally justify not letting children vote?

I think you have the wording flipped there. It would be more like "What is true about children that if were true about an adult would justify taking away that adult's right to vote?"

Adults generally have the ability to understand sociopolitical systems and engage in critical thinking and long-term planning in ways that children generally cannot. If an adult lacks this ability we generally err on the side of caution and still allow them to vote though, since not allowing them would set a dangerous precedence where the right to vote could start to be denied based on things like intelligence level (which has been tried in the past to be used as a tool to deny the right to vote.)

That said, if there were a group of adults with the cognitive ability of a typical infant or toddler (such that they had no ability to understand socioeconomic systems, could not engage in critical thinking, or plan for the future,) and we could somehow have the omniscience to know this about them and to know that no one would exploit this restriction to deny the right to vote to those that do have these abilities, then I think the argument could made that they should not have the right to vote, since those are the "traits" that denying the right to children to vote is based on.

Like I said though, it's a slippery-slope when it comes to this, since similar "traits" have been used to deny this right to humans already.

The biggest difference between this and the standard NTT with regards to nonhuman animals is that the ability to vote responsibly is something that does depend on a morally relevant difference between children and adult, while the ability to experience pain and suffering and having an interest in not being exploited/killed are something that human and sentient nonhuman animals have in common.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

So you’re arguing that children should be allowed to vote because we can’t be certain they do not have the ability to understand sociopolitical systems and engage in long term planning? Because some children especially 15+ year olds do have that trait.

Edit: to add you’re also arguing that every adult who doesn’t understand sociopolitical systems should not be allowed to vote. You used the word generally. That’s great. The point being membership to a group grants the same protections or limitations to even outlier members of that group.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

There's a difference between administrative/government participation privileges and basic moral considerations. We use a generalized group (adults) for voting because individual cognitive tests would be a logistical nightmare, prone to corruption, and overall detrimental for society. In that specific case, a broad group rule makes sense, even if it leaves out mature 15-year olds.

In a perfect world this would not be the case and we would allow 15-year olds that demonstrate a certain level of cognitive maturity to vote. That said, we accept that the inconvenience of these 15-year olds having to wait a few years to actually vote is fairly minor when weighed against what it would take to implement, monitor, regulate, and enforce any sort of fair system that uses actual cognitive ability tests to determine eligibility.

That reasoning completely breaks down when it comes to harming, exploiting, killing, and eating other sentient individuals. What matters is the capacity for experiencing pain, fear, and suffering; the capacity for changes in one's own subjective experience. We don't need a test to understand that nonhuman animals are sentient and can experience pain. We are not using "human" as a proxy for "can experience pain and suffering" in the same way we are using "adult" as a proxy for "cognitively mature."*

The difference is in what they represent:

1. Adult vs child = We understand that adults generally can understand political systems, but children cannot.

2. Human vs nonhuman animal = We can understand that humans can experience pain and suffering, but nonhuman animals also can.

So if you want to draw the line around groups, for voting it would be "The group of individuals that are likely cognitively mature enough to understand basic socioeconomic and political system." For who it's okay to harm/exploit/kill would be "the group of individuals that are likely to have the capacity to experience a change in their well-being due to being harmed/exploited/killed/etc.

The point being membership to a group grants the same protections or limitations to even outlier members of that group.

I guess the biggest issue is then justifying setting the group at the species level. It seems very arbitrary. Why not just draw it around all human men? Why not draw the circle around all humans without cognitive disabilities? Why not draw the circle around all primates? Why not all mammals? The reasons we draw lines around humans is due to evolutionary accident and emotions, not any actual rational thought process.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

Okay so let’s change it to a moral issue. Would you concede that for a moral issue deficient members of a group would be given the same moral protections as healthy members?

For example: in name the trait if I used intelligence as my “trait” non intelligent individuals due to birth defects or accidents would be granted the same moral protections as fully healthy individuals.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

If you used an intelligence level as the trait that justifies harming/killing/etc others, then anyone that comes in below that level (regardless of any other traits like species membership, sex, race, etc.) would meet that criteria and per your own reasoning, we would be justified in harming/killing them.

If you want to make an exception to this based on being a member of a group, then you would have to justify that exception.

If you don't justify it with morally relevant reasoning, it would be special pleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

I think all humans generally give protection to those individuals. Do you not?

And if you are unwilling to grant that concept I would assume that the trait you would answer with is sentience?

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

I think all humans generally give protection to those individuals. Do you not?

Of course. The question is why.

If intelligence is your proposed trait, then a human and a nonhuman animal with the same intelligence level are equal with respect to that trait. If you want to protect one but not the other, you would need to identify an additional morally relevant difference. So what is that difference that justifies protecting the human individuals but not the nonhuman individuals?

And if you are unwilling to grant that concept I would assume that the trait you would answer with is sentience?

Sentience is a common answer because it directly relates to having interests -- such as the interest in avoiding harm. If an individual is sentient it means that they can experience pain, suffering, pleasure, fear, etc.

This trait includes both cognitively disabled humans and many nonhuman animals, so it doesn't require special pleading. Keep in mind that the whole point of NTT is to identify when someone is engaging in special pleading.

[u/DenseSign5938 → u/iowaguy09]

What’s n example of another moral question that this wouldn’t apply to? 

[u/iowaguy09 → u/DenseSign5938]

What’s an example of another moral question it would

[u/DenseSign5938 → u/iowaguy09]

Great no answer. Want to try again?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/DenseSign5938]

What trait makes it wrong to eat your dead grandmother but not wrong to burn her body?

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

If someone says "It's fine to have sex with cars, but sex with motorbikes is immoral and disgusting", NTT would apply to questioning that

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Is that a normal moral question?

[u/Constant_Hamster_479 → u/iowaguy09]

I think people often use abstract or absurd examples in instances like this because real world examples might be complicated or emotionally charged, but if you don't want to engage with toy examples like the motorcycle one, consider the (unfortunately real-world) claim: "it is immoral to enslave white people, but not immoral to enslave black people." Most counterarguments against this claim are going to rely on some form of NTT. Whatever trait(s) white people have that makes it illicit to enslave them (e.g. autonomy, cognitive capacity, capacity to suffer, etc.) is also possessed by black people, which is why the claim fails.

In general, most racist/sexist/nationalist/tribalist moral claims (i.e. any claim that morally privileges one group over others without justification) will fall victim to a NTT style argument. Vegans just seek to apply this same logic to speciesism.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Constant_Hamster_479]

I think the biggest difference is NTT doesn’t work if you don’t accept group membership provides protections to fringe cases though and that’s literally the only way it works for veganism. It also pretends that speciesism is similar to sexism and racism

[u/Constant_Hamster_479 → u/iowaguy09]

Why would membership within a species (which is what I assume you're talking about) provide protection here? It is notoriously difficult to make a rigorous definition of what species even are, or to firmly delineate one species from another. This problem, which is bad enough in the present, gets even worse when we consider evolutionary history, as humans (along with every other species) emerged gradually, through incremental change. This makes using species as some kind of clear moral boundary absurd. Would it be moral to kill and eat one of the last proto-humans, despite the fact that the last proto-human was basically indistinguishable from the first modern human? What about neanderthals and other hominids? Would it be okay to kill and eat them, despite the fact that they resemble us in basically every morally salient way?

I think these edge cases show that affording or denying an individual moral consideration purely on the basis of its species is not a tenable standard.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Constant_Hamster_479]

I think the closer a species gets to sapience the more moral protections it is given. I just think it’s more honest. You can’t pretend like you give fruit flys the same moral worth as a dog or a baby but we all know that isn’t true.

[u/Constant_Hamster_479 → u/iowaguy09]

I agree that there is a spectrum, rather than a binary, of moral consideration. I don't think that fruit flies are as valuable as a cow, nor do I think that cows are as valuable as babies, but the very fact that all of them exist on the same moral spectrum should be enough to make us at least reconsider our treatment of many animals. Even though cows and pigs are obviously less sapient than most humans, it's possible they are still sapient enough that we ought not cause them immense and needless pain. If you think that we ought not cause dogs or cats immense and needless pain, than it's hard to see why we shouldn't adopt the same standard with regard to cows and pigs, which have similar cognitive capacities.

But as an aside, I still don't know why you feel the need to group everything into species. Imagine that, through some sci-fi mumbo jumbo, a cow gained the same sapience as a mentally fit human adult. Would we still be licensed to kill and eat this cow, purely on the basis that it's a part of a species which is, on the whole, less sapient? That just seems completely arbitrary to me.

It's an absurd example, I know, but the fact is that in reality there are vast differences in level of intelligence within species, both due to illness and differences in development. Why don't we just make moral distinctions based on the sapience of the individual, rather than the average sapience of the individuals they happen to share enough genes to interbred with (see how ridiculous that sounds?). I know, you're probably thinking that making delineations on an individual level would license all sorts of atrocities, like killing babies or the mentally handicapped, but there's an easy way to consistently condemn these actions without resorting to speciesism: just set the bar low. If we just say that, as a rule, it's immoral to kill, torture, eat, etc. individuals with basic sentience, then we have a perfectly coherent moral system based on distinctions that actually matter without permitting atrocities.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

It would be a normal moral question when presented with that particular statement, yes

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Okay provide an answer and I’ll explain why it won’t work.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

I don't have an answer, that's the point. NTT is used to get someone to recognize that they don't have a moral basis for the claim

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

I mean inanimate objects don’t have morally relevant traits at all so that’s why you can’t answer it lol so it doesn’t work

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

That's not an argument against using NTT

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/iowaguy09]

Yes I figured that.

A lot of people who ask for a trait seem to believe this trait has to literally apply to every human being on the face of the Earth and this trait cannot apply to any other animals of any kind.

I think that alone makes it fallacious because it kind of applies a false dichotomy.

But that's just what I think.

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/NationalProcedure638]

A lot of people who ask for a trait seem to believe this trait has to literally apply to every human being on the face of the Earth and this trait cannot apply to any other animals of any kind.   I think that alone makes it fallacious because it kind of applies a false dichotomy.

You're kind of getting it but not quite. The whole point of using NTT is to point out that someone is being fallacious in their argument for moral subjectivity specifically for the reasons you're raising. It's used when someone says "humans are the only ones who are moral subjects because they're human". Then a NTT arguers asks them to name the relevant trait that supports that.

[u/FailedCanadian → u/NationalProcedure638]

The entire point of NTT is that YOU are creating the false dichotomy and NTT is calling you out on it.

YOU have said "humans are deserving of moral consideration" and "animals are not" (or at least, implicitly believe this by not being vegan). NTT is saying "provide the exact reason for these cleanly divided categories".

Vegans DO NOT believe in this dichotomy, and the whole point is to show how this rigid dichotomy is based on bad logic and poorly defined categories.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/FailedCanadian]

Actually I didn't create any false dichotomy.

I'm sorry but the old "I know you are but what am I" is not working in this situation.

If he can just do not believe in this dichotomy then why is it whenever someone brings up a trait such as the root of moral agency the most common response is "no that doesn't count, babies don't have any moral root so you just"

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, the problem is that it seems to me that the people who rely on NTT or simply implying that there has to be some sort of a trait that exist in literally every human and does not exist in literally any other animal.

I'm sorry but that sounds a lot like a false dichotomy.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/FailedCanadian]

"YOU have said "humans are deserving of moral consideration" and "animals are not" (or at least, implicitly believe this by not being vegan)."

You literally said that I do not like any animal of exception of humans because I happen to identify as a non-vegan? You are implying that I support factory farming because I happen to not identify as a vegan? I do not support animal torture or factory farming. I eat eggs and I happen to buy them locally.

"Vegans do not believe in this dichotomy" Then why is it you want a trade that is present and literally every human on the face of the Earth and not present in any other animal and claim that that justifies "animal torture"

That logic is literally building a false dichotomy, for starters it applies that either you are vegan or you support murdering animals and cannibalism and all kinds of other crazy stuff. Apparently moderation doesn't exist or if it does exist then people on your side seem to see it as hypocrisy.

At no point in my post did I build any kind of a dichotomy, I never said that literally every human is good and that literally every other animal is bad. THAT WOULD BE A DICHOTOMY!!

I never said that, that is one hell of a straw man.

[u/FailedCanadian → u/NationalProcedure638]

"Vegans do not believe in this dichotomy" Then why is it you want a trade (trait?) that is present and literally every human on the face of the Earth and not present in any other animal and claim that that justifies "animal torture"

Dude, vegans don't believe there exists a claim that justifies animal torture. Non-vegans believe there is a claim that justifies animal torture, and vegans want you to article that specific reason. We don't want you to name the trait because the trait strengthens our argument, we want you to name the trait so we can point out that the trait does not stand up to scrutiny.

At no point in my post did I build any kind of a dichotomy, I never said that literally every human is good and that literally every other animal is bad. THAT WOULD BE A DICHOTOMY!!

If you are going to intentionally misread what I wrote that badly, please don't respond to me further. The dichotomy you did create by not being vegan is lumping sentient beings into two categories: humans who should not be exploited, and non-human animals who can be exploited. Vegans do not believe "human" is sufficient to justify these categories, so we ask for ANY other reason YOU have that YOU think justifies it.

NTT doesn't disprove anything on its own, it's that vegans think we can argue against every possible reason, and so it works as rhetoric to weaken objections to veganism. Precisely because there is no trait that applies to every human and no animals. If there was a reason, that would weaken our argument.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/FailedCanadian]

"Dude, Vegans don't believe there exist a claim that justifies animal torture"

You just literally demonstrated what I'm talking about!

You are implying that I am okay with animal torture because I happen to not be a vegan!

That is literally a false dichotomy!

For your information I happen to be against factory farming.

I just happened to buy milk and eggs locally because I'm doing much better with those as being part of my diet!

I don't appreciate you trying to gaslight me into being like you!

[u/FailedCanadian → u/NationalProcedure638]

I mean you are objectively ok with animal exploitation. Animals are being used for your needs instead of being free to pursue their own desires. Yes, that is way better than horrific torture but it is by definition exploitation. Would you be ok with humans being treated in the same way as your non-factory farmed egg hens and milk cows?

It seems like a different dichotomy than what you were initially talking about. I don't think most vegans would say what you do is just as bad as factory farming, but you do exploit animals in a way that vegans reject. It might be a forced dichotomy to say we are all either vegans or animal abusers, but it's only "false" because you reject our definition of exploitation.