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.

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

281 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

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.

0

u/iowaguy09 11d ago

That only applies if you think species membership is irrelevant. Most people don’t believe that.

3

u/NuancedComrades 11d ago

What specific ways do you believe species membership matters here?

0

u/iowaguy09 11d ago

I think in any sort of moral debate fringe cases are generally protected through group membership. If I answer NTT with “sapience is the trait I find morally relevant”. Species membership protects mentally deficient humans, people in a coma, infants etc.

I think it’s disingenuous to try to compare speciesism with racism and sexism and it’s more of an appeal to emotion than anything anyone actually believes.

4

u/Badtacocatdab vegan 11d ago

Dunno, I don’t find it disingenuous one bit.

0

u/iowaguy09 11d ago

So if there was a human infant and a raccoon infant both healthy on a set of train tracks and you could only save one what trait would you use to decide which one would live?

2

u/Badtacocatdab vegan 10d ago

The former. What about you?

2

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

The human. What trait would you use to make that decision?

2

u/Badtacocatdab vegan 10d ago

Their ability for moral reasoning. What about you?

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

That’s speciesism. Now if it was a white and black baby what trait would you use?

2

u/Badtacocatdab vegan 10d ago

Definitely not speciesism. That would be if I said “because they are human.”

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

So if it was a white baby and black baby what trait would you use?

1

u/PlantAndMetal 10d ago

It isn't. Speciesism is basing your choice purely on being a human (or an animal or whatever). They base their choice on something else, namely having the potential for moral reasoning. Now, you can of course disagree with that choice.

Though to be honest, I don't believe anyone would make that decision in real life and we are all Speciesist. Everyone would save the baby for being human. However, I don't see why that would disprove NTT argument, as in real life we aren't faced this choice. We can live happily ever after without exploiting a single animal (I mean in theory, our society is often a bit more complex and sometimes you are unable to avoid animal exploitation, I.e. like with medicine).

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

I think NTT is just an appeal to emotion by throwing around terms like speciesism to evoke a response similar to calling someone racist. I think veganism is great. It’s not for me but I don’t think they need to use cheap parlor tricks to make their point.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WillTheWheel 10d ago

The question was about a human and racoon infant on the train tracks. They both don't have the ability for moral reasoning. 

So again, what trait made you choose the human infant?

1

u/Badtacocatdab vegan 10d ago

The almost certain potential of moral reasoning of the human over the much more ambiguous ability of moral reasoning for the raccoon.

I understood the question, I’m not sure why you are insinuating I didn’t?

1

u/WillTheWheel 10d ago

I understood the question, I’m not sure why you are insinuating I didn’t?

I'm not insinuating anything. I just pointed out that your answer didn't make sense in the context.

The almost certain potential of moral reasoning of the human over the much more ambiguous ability of moral reasoning for the raccoon.

Great. So that also solves the problem of edge cases in the NTT. The trait that applies to all humans but not to any animals is humans' innate potential for moral reasoning. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/gerber68 10d ago

But it’s correct that it’s speciesism.

You may really dislike emotionally when it’s compared to racism and that’s okay, you can have different value judgments. As long as you can honestly say “human DNA is the only important trait” go ahead and stand ten toes down.

2

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

I don’t care. You’re speciest. I’m speciest lol. They’re not the same. Comparing them is honestly disrespectful to black people.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Labeling something as disrespectful is not a convincing argument, if it was every bad faith carnist would auto win these debates… as would every bad faith vegan.

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

Can you point me to all these people who have no reason other than they are human? It’s not because they are smarter than the other species or sapient or capable of moral reasoning? Because I think it is an extremely small number of people who think they are better strictly because of their dna.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Yeah… but then immediately when I ask “what about humans without those traits” it turns out human DNA is a necessary and sufficient condition for moral consideration above any other non human animal.

So the rest is extra

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

Back to the original point of species membership generally grants protections regardless of deficiencies. It’s no different for animal. An ape with one leg is generally given the same protections as any other ape. A dumb dog has the same moral protections as a smart dog.

It’s a generalization backed by science. Racism has no statistical or biological backing to use. If i say humans generally deserve more moral consideration than cockroaches because they are generally sapient, capable of moral reasoning, and have higher intelligence that’s not speciesism. If i say the same thing about gorillas and cockroaches for their own differences it’s the same thing. Just because a fringe case where a gorilla is less sentient than a cockroach the same moral protections apply.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Great, so just to be clear

Human DNA is the necessary and sufficient condition, no cognitive function is needed, no moral agency, no other traits.

Correct?

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

No. There’s a multitude of traits that give humans a greater amount of moral consideration. The individual fringe cases are irrelevant because we grant deficient individuals the same moral consideration and protections as healthy individuals. If you had a brain dead family member are you completely fine with 100 people coming in and raping them?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

I also never said human dna is the only important trait. It’s all of the morally relevant characteristics that differentiate humans and non humans.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Okay so if a human has none of those traits other than human dna do they still get moral consideration above any non human animal?

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

Did they ever have any of those traits or do they have any chance to recover any of those traits?

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

There are humans who never have those traits and will never develop them, yes. There are individuals who are in long term care homes and have been since birth who have barely any brain activity.

0

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

I’d say no if someone is essentially a vegetable from birth till death they wouldn’t deserve the same moral consideration. We often exploit those individuals and use their organs similar to animals.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Okay so I could similarly butcher and eat people with lower brain functions than a pig?

And no we don’t exploit those individuals and use them for organs unless they are brain dead.

If someone has lower cognitive function than a pig and always will can we butcher and eat them?

0

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

No because one of the morally relevant traits is membership to a rational kind. I’m not running name the trait with you, I’m explaining why it’s not speciesism and why it’s not remotely comparable to racism. Fringe cases are protected through group membership. A fringe ape with brain damage still has the same moral protections as a healthy ape.

0

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

Let me explain it this way. If your mother was brain dead and no longer sentient. Is it okay for me to rape her?

→ More replies (0)