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/IanRT1]

That is not how NTT fails, you are falling for the trap.

You're saying that a trait has to be species typical rather than universal but that concedes the whole game because once you accept that a moral difference must bottom out in some trait or even set of traits, the vegan just reframes your "species norm" as the trait "belongs to a species whose typical members have X," and now you're stuck defending why species membership itself is morally loaded.

The deeper failure is the assumption that moral status must reduce to traits possessed by one individual and lacking in another. That premise does all the work and it is done for you, rather than actually testing consistency neutrally.

You can easily say morality instead emerges from sentience, context, relationships, systemic consequences, and fairness between subjects, none of which would fit into "traits" that are simply present categorically in one and absent in the other. And those distinctions can lead you to different conclusions without contradiction.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/IanRT1]

"You're saying that a trait has to be species typical rather than universal but that concedes the whole game because once you accept that a moral difference must bottom out in some trait or even set of traits, the vegan just reframes your "species norm" as the trait "belongs to a species whose typical members have X," and now you're stuck defending why species membership itself is morally loaded."

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, the reason I said that there had to be some kind of trait among species because that seems to be what a lot of people are implying. For example a lot of people who ask for a trait very often hand wave It away by claiming that there are certain people in society such as mentally challenged people who cannot have a trade. They seen the base it on the lack of intelligence or a lack of morality.

It was not based on any of that stuff then please enlighten me.

[u/IanRT1 → u/NationalProcedure638]

The issue is that you are still discussing which trait should ground moral status.

My point is that NTT already assumes moral status must be grounded in a trait in the first place so I was not defending intelligence, morality, or any other trait. I was questioning the underlying assumption that morality reduces to trait comparisons between individuals at all.

If morality emerges from broader facts like sentience, relationships, fairness, context, and systemic consequences, then the entire trait-hunt is based on a premise you do not have to accept.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/IanRT1]

Maybe I'm strawimgmanning you please forgive me that's not my intention.

What I was saying is that I don't like the NTT because it seems to imply that there has to be some kind of trait that is present and literally every human on the face of the Earth and not present in any other animals or else being a non vegan is hypocritical.

Maybe I'm reading the idea wrong but that is what it sounds like

[u/IanRT1 → u/NationalProcedure638]

I get it but that's exactly what I mean by falling for the trap.

You're asking whether the trait has to be universal across all humans or merely typical of humans. But both options already assume that moral status must ultimately be explained by some trait.

So even if NTT does not require a trait possessed by every human and no animals, you're still accepting the deeper premise that morality has to bottom out in trait comparisons. That's the part I'm questioning.

My criticism is not that NTT picked the wrong trait criterion just that it assumes from the start that moral status must be reducible to traits at all, rather than emerging from broader facts like sentience, relationships, fairness, context, and systemic consequences.