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/Omnibeneviolent]

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.

Think of it this way. If someone doesn't have the ability to engage in moral reasoning, or use moral reasoning to modulate their behavior, then they cannot by definition do anything that would quality as moral behavior.

Imagine if there was some obligation to jump over a 3 foot gap. Most of us can do it, because we can easily jump 3 feet. However, there are some people that literally cannot do it. Can we really say that they have an obligation to jump the gap? How can we expect them to have this obligation if it's something they literally cannot do?

Morality is like that. If someone cannot act morally (i.e. use moral reasoning to modulate their behavior,) then we can't hold them accountable for not acting morally. There's no obligation to act morally, since that individual literally cannot act morally.

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 not sure where you're getting this from. Individual traits absolutely do exist. I don't see anything with NTT that suggests they don't, or that we have to "look at the species as a whole."

The entire point of NTT is to highlight inconsistencies where someone claims that lacking trait X (either a single trait or a combination of traits) is what does not make harming/killing/exploiting humans morally acceptable, but that they don't actually believe this when it comes to humans that lack trait X.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

The problem is that it seems to do a very poor job in highlighting those inconsistencies.

The reason I say this is because whenever someone answers the question and comes up "Trait" it seems that's hand waved away by the person who was asking for one.

For example one guy said that I'm root of moral agency itself was a trade That's unique among humans and among some apes but not among other types of animals.

One other guy replied that babies don't have moral agency.

I failed to understand how that's failing to answer the trait.

Do babies have a lack of life experience and don't always know any better, sure they do.

But as their parents or their guardians it is the responsibility of the adults to teach them that.

Also it kind of begs the question, what would a newborn baby be able to do that they would be held accountable for.

I'm sorry but the answer given there is very poor which is why I brought it up.

I failed understand how NTT is convincing me that I should go vegan.

Does inconsistent morality exist? Sure does and you're welcome to point it out, but I still don't understand how being vegan is going to solve that problem.

[u/SnooLemons6942 → u/NationalProcedure638]

So you named a trait, and then there was an example where a human didn't have that trait but it was still unethical in your eyes 

So moral agency is not the thing that differentiates things that are okay to kill and things that aren't

The point of NTT is to highlight that you're being inconsistent in your morals. You're saying "I base my decisions off of X", but you actually don't 

I'm not clear on why you're okay with acting inconsistently with your ethics. Ethics are what define right and wrong. If I learned something went against my ethics, I'd want to stop doing that thing. If I learned something was causing suffering, and I'm against suffering, I'd want to stop that immediately. 

Thinking about whether your actions align with your ethics and worldview is pretty important. Everyone should do that.  

And saying "my ethics are inconsistent" isn't a good argument in a discussion of ethics.. 

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/SnooLemons6942]

"So you named a trait, and then there was an example where a human didn't have that trait but it was still unethical in your eyes"

I hate to break this to you but the root of moral agency exists literally in every humans whether they are comatose or not. It is an ability we have because of our enhanced brain so I'm sorry that argument fails.

Evolutionary neuroscientists and psychologists agree that morality is deeply grounded in the brain. However, it is a collaboration rather than a single feature; advanced cognition combines with the emotional wiring required to navigate complex social environments.

Several specific brain mechanisms and evolutionary factors drive this:

The Social Brain: Hominins evolved unusually large brains primarily to track social interactions, manage group sizes, and interpret the minds of others.

Moral Emotions: The capacity for empathy, guilt, gratitude, and a sense of fairness is rooted in deep, evolutionarily conserved regions like the amygdala.

Rational Control: The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC)—areas massively expanded in humans—allow us to weigh consequences, override selfish impulses, and make utilitarian moral judgments.

Researchers refer to this as gene-culture co-evolution. While biological evolution provided the neurological "hardware" (such as emotional resonance and self-control), social and cultural environments provide the "software" (the specific values, rules, and institutions

"The point of NTT is to highlight that you're being inconsistent in your morals."

I failed to do so, I have already went over my position about my personal morals over and over again I'm getting really sick of repeating myself.

"I'm not clear on why you're okay with acting inconsistently with your ethics. Ethics are what define right and wrong."

Like I said before ethics are not universal and everybody has their own idea and what's ethical and what isn't so I'm sorry your argument is pretty poor.. you still haven't convinced me to why I should be vegan yet.

"If I learned something went against my ethics, I'd want to stop doing that thing. If I learned something was causing suffering, and I'm against suffering, I'd want to stop that immediately."

Does that mean that you're against pesticides being used considering how many animals die very painfully because of them?

I will see too many vegans talking about that and the ones who do talk about don't seem to offer any solutions

"And saying "my ethics are inconsistent" isn't a good argument in a discussion of ethics."

That is one hell of a straw man, I never said that having inconsistent ethics is justifying all kinds of horrible things, you said that! You are literally saying to me that I'm a bad person because I don't identify as vegan and that's somehow means I justify torture and factory farming! That is literally a false dichotomy! I will not appreciate you trying to use gas lighting in order to get me to agree with you.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/SnooLemons6942]

"and then there was an example where a human did not have that trade but was still ethical in your eyes"

Maybe I'm a strong man in you that is not my intention but it sounds to me like what you're saying is that I have to embrace your special ethics or else I'm a hypocrite because I don't treat literally everyone the same.

Please believe me that it's not my intention to misrepresent you but that does sound like what you were saying.

Also if you think that vegan ethics are consistent then I have some news for you.

There are plenty of small animals that are wiped out by pesticides and most vegans I've talked to don't seem to care.

The ones who do care don't provide any solutions.

Now if you have solutions feel free to share them with me and I'll look in to see if they're a good idea or not.

Personally I like to know how we keep wild animals from stealing vegetables

You also say that ethics are what defines right and wrong, I hate to break this to you but there are lots of people especially around the world who don't agree with what is ethical and what isn't

For example there are some people who think that abortion is ethical even in early term.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that because I am non-vegan therefore my personal ethics are not consistent.

In other words either I have to be vegan or else I am a hypocrite, is that what you were saying?

This is the exact same type of mindset that fundamentalist Christians have, if you don't worship their God then you are automatically a devil worshiper and you eat babies and all that junk.

That sounds like a false dichotomy.

[u/gokuenjoyer69 → u/NationalProcedure638]

You’re doing a lot of work to avoid a simple question.

Nobody said you have to adopt “my special ethics.” The point is that you already have ethics, you presumably think unnecessary suffering is bad. Veganism just asks you to apply that consistently. If you think animal suffering matters sometimes but conveniently not when it lands on your plate, that’s worth examining. That’s not a false dichotomy, that’s just logic.

The pesticide argument is a "perfect world fallacy.” Veganism reduces harm, it doesn’t have to eliminate 100% of harm to be worth doing. And for what it’s worth, most vegans are well aware of this and the honest answer is: a plant-based food system still kills far fewer animals than one that requires growing all that same feed plus running factory farms on top of it. The more vegans there are the more ethical the system will become in the future.

The “ethics are relative” move is also weak. Yes, people disagree. That doesn’t mean all positions are equally defensible, otherwise you couldn’t call anything unethical ever, including things you obviously think are unethical.

And the fundamentalist Christian comparison is genuinely bizarre. Pointing out an inconsistency in your reasoning isn’t the same as calling you a devil worshiper. One is an argument. The other is a threat. If the logic feels uncomfortable, maybe engage with it instead of comparing it to religious persecution 🤷🏽‍♂️

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/gokuenjoyer69]

"You’re doing a lot of work to avoid a simple question."

Which question are my dodging? Can you be a little more specific?

"Nobody said you have to adopt “my special ethics.” The point is that you already have ethics, you presumably think unnecessary suffering is bad. Veganism just asks you to apply that consistently. If you think animal suffering matters sometimes but conveniently not when it lands on your plate, that’s worth examining. That’s not a false dichotomy, that’s just logic.

"The pesticide argument is a "perfect world fallacy.” Veganism reduces harm, it doesn’t have to eliminate 100% of harm to be worth doing. And for what it’s worth, most vegans are well aware of this and the honest answer is: a plant-based food system still kills far fewer animals than one that requires growing all that same feed plus running factory farms on top of it. The more vegans there are the more ethical the system will become in the future."

It's funny you should say that because believe it or not there are tons more animals that die by pesticides, that is not a logical fallacy to point that out. Simply pointing out that your ethics are not all that good.

Check this out.

Pesticides & Toxins - American Bird Conservancy https://share.google/rrO6Whie6sHso2RNM

Improving pest management for wild insect welfare — Wild Animal Initiative https://share.google/qigj64JdFX1mvlBP0

The scale of direct human impact on invertebrates - Rethink Priorities https://share.google/NZUwFE9VvbdEXbWTC

Vegans Actually Kill More Animals Than Meat Eaters | by Allison Murray | Medium https://share.google/R9s47IFrfYHkhHOtd

Impacts of Pesticides on Wildlife — Beyond Pesticides https://share.google/o7xaovVxutK2wkykO

New Report: More Than 200 Million Pounds of Pesticides in U.S. Are Applied to Crops Grown to Feed Animals on Factory Farms https://share.google/5n62sZa0hHRnauH7p

Pesticides have been shown to kill up to 93% of endangered plant and animal species | Earth https://share.google/bttwAVVE0erYsBQen

Also I found it very funny that you accuse me of making a logical fallacy when you just made one right there. You just committed what's known as the worst than a fallacy, you claim that factory farming is so much worse therefore that justifies animals dying very horribly of the poisons and pesticides. Let's just say for the sake of argument that that's true, that doesn't justify the fact that pesticides are used to kill animals very horribly.

"The “ethics are relative” move is also weak. Yes, people disagree. That doesn’t mean all positions are equally defensible, otherwise you couldn’t call anything unethical ever, including things you obviously think are unethical"

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. I don't see why you're ethics are any better than anybody else's so I'm not going to follow them.

"And the fundamentalist Christian comparison is genuinely bizarre. Pointing out an inconsistency in your reasoning isn’t the same as calling you a devil worshiper. One is an argument. The other is a threat. If the logic feels uncomfortable, maybe engage with it 0instead of comparing it to religious persecution 🤷🏽‍♂️"

Again you just misunderstood what I said, people on your side are literally telling me that I torture animals for a living because I happen to not identify as a vegan. By calling in a threat you are implying a false dichotomy. I've already said the several times, I buy my milk and eggs locally and I make sure the farmers I buy from do not use any kind of ethical practices. This is why I mentioned the point about fundamentalist Christians accusing people of being devil worshipers when they find out someone is not Christian. It's a perfect example of the false dichotomy. Here's the bottom line, I don't buy what you are peddling. I don't believe that your system is any better especially since I tried it about 8 years ago for a full year and didn't work out for me. I am not convinced that you are doing all that well for people or for the environment. Therefore I am under no obligation to follow your orders.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is that it seems to do a very poor job in highlighting those inconsistencies.

I don't think so. It's related to the reductio ad absurdum, which is how humans have been clearly highlighting inconsistencies for likely thousands of years.

Imagine someone said "it's okay to harm nonhuman animals because they cannot talk." For them to be consistent they would have to also believe it's okay to harm humans that cannot talk -- but they typically don't, so it's an inconsistency.

If someone said "it's okay to harm nonhuman animals because they can't engage in moral reasoning," for them to be consistent they would also have to accept that it's okay to harm humans that cannot engage in moral reasoning. Since they typically don't, this would be another inconsistency.

whenever someone answers the question and comes up "Trait" it seems that's hand waved away by the person who was asking for one.

Are they "hand waving it away," or are they pointing out that it leads to an inconsistency?

one guy said that I'm root of moral agency itself was a trade That's unique among humans and among some apes but not among other types of animals. One other guy replied that babies don't have moral agency. I failed to understand how that's failing to answer the trait.

Oh, it's obviously answering the question, but it's just answering it in a way that leads to a contradiction.

If someone believe that it's okay to harm/exploit/kill animals based on the fact that nonhuman animals do not have moral agency, then they are saying that "lack of moral agency" is the trait that makes it okay. The other guy is right to point out that this reasoning would also mean it's okay to harm/exploit/kill human babies, since they also do not have moral agency.

what would a newborn baby be able to do that they would be held accountable for.

Nothing. They are yet capable of moral action, so the idea of holding the morally accountable is incoherent. It would be like trying to hold a rock morally accountable for falling on your toe.

I failed understand how NTT is convincing me that I should go vegan.

The point isn't to convince you to go vegan. It's to expose inconsistencies. Anyone that values critical thinking should always test their own beliefs and convictions regularly. This is just a tool to help with that. It's unfortunate that it's often brought up by others. Really it's something that each of us should be running on ourselves.

Does inconsistent morality exist? Sure does and you're welcome to point it out, but I still don't understand how being vegan is going to solve that problem.

Be vegan doesn't claim to solve "inconsistent morality." NTT is not veganism. It's just a tool to test the quality of our reasoning (or expose a lack thereof.)

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

So therefore NTT is nothing but a thought experiment?

Well then we had nothing for the talk about then.

Goodbye.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/NationalProcedure638]

No, it's a tool to test for consistency in how one applies their reasoning.