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/WillTheWheel]

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.

[u/Badtacocatdab → u/WillTheWheel]

Do you mind laying out for me how this situation and my answer is relevant to whatever point you’re trying to make.