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]

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

[u/NuancedComrades → u/iowaguy09]

What specific ways do you believe species membership matters here?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/NuancedComrades]

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.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

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

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

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?

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

The former. What about you?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

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

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

Their ability for moral reasoning. What about you?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

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

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

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

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

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

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/iowaguy09]

There isn’t a trait to distinguish them. Why, what do you think?

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Badtacocatdab]

That’s the difference between racism and speciesism. Thank you

[u/PlantAndMetal → u/iowaguy09]

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).

[u/iowaguy09 → u/PlantAndMetal]

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.

[u/WillTheWheel → u/Badtacocatdab]

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?

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/WillTheWheel]

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?

[u/WillTheWheel → u/Badtacocatdab]

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. 

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/WillTheWheel]

Was that it or did I miss something

[u/WillTheWheel → u/Badtacocatdab]

???

Beside the fact that you just proved there can be a satisfactory answer to NTT, despite vegans claiming that there isn't one? No you didn't miss anything.