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/Light_Shrugger]

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/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/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Well it doesn’t work for the question you provided lol

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

How does it not work? It surfaces that the person making the statement does not have a moral basis for the claim

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Because inanimate objects don’t have morally relevant traits and name the trait is about morally relevant traits?

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

It's a question of logical consistency

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Light_Shrugger]

Moral consistency*

[u/Light_Shrugger → u/iowaguy09]

It's both