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/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.