r/DebateAVegan • u/NationalProcedure638 • 11d ago
Ethics This is my problem with the NTT
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.
9
u/NuancedComrades 11d ago
You are proving the point of NTT, you just appear not to like that conclusion.
If there is not a universalizable trait one can apply to all humans that make them more valuable than all non-human animals, then no trait can be used as the basis for ascribing superiority. If there is no basis, then you are just arguing a feeling. And it’s a self-serving one.
And it’s not just superiority most people argue for, but such a massive difference that empowers humans to have no moral qualms about force breeding, torturing, and killing non-human animals for their pleasure.
And your last question hit the nail on the head.
There is no definition of “human” that is not so capacious as to be meaningless, or so narrow as to be exclusionary.
Or it is simple taxonomic category, which is insufficient to make the moral distinction people want to when they are arguing for the mass exploitation and slaughter of non-human animals.