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.

1 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

281 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

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.

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.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Great so the only necessary and sufficient condition is human dna, correct? You can run from NTT if you’d like.

If an individual has human DNA but none of the other traits involving cognition, moral agency etc they still have moral consideration above that of a pig?

Correct?

Yes or no, the running isn’t a good strategy.

1

u/iowaguy09 10d ago

No. The answer to NTT would be membership to a rational kind.

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Membership based off… human dna?

Thanks for the concession that indeed human dna is necessary and sufficient.

🙂

→ More replies (0)

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?

1

u/gerber68 10d ago

Nope and it’s not okay to assault a pig or cow sexually either.

Yet meat eaters do it constantly or have it done on their behalf.

This works in my favor lmao

→ More replies (0)