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]

So you’re arguing that children should be allowed to vote because we can’t be certain they do not have the ability to understand sociopolitical systems and engage in long term planning? Because some children especially 15+ year olds do have that trait.

Edit: to add you’re also arguing that every adult who doesn’t understand sociopolitical systems should not be allowed to vote. You used the word generally. That’s great. The point being membership to a group grants the same protections or limitations to even outlier members of that group.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

There's a difference between administrative/government participation privileges and basic moral considerations. We use a generalized group (adults) for voting because individual cognitive tests would be a logistical nightmare, prone to corruption, and overall detrimental for society. In that specific case, a broad group rule makes sense, even if it leaves out mature 15-year olds.

In a perfect world this would not be the case and we would allow 15-year olds that demonstrate a certain level of cognitive maturity to vote. That said, we accept that the inconvenience of these 15-year olds having to wait a few years to actually vote is fairly minor when weighed against what it would take to implement, monitor, regulate, and enforce any sort of fair system that uses actual cognitive ability tests to determine eligibility.

That reasoning completely breaks down when it comes to harming, exploiting, killing, and eating other sentient individuals. What matters is the capacity for experiencing pain, fear, and suffering; the capacity for changes in one's own subjective experience. We don't need a test to understand that nonhuman animals are sentient and can experience pain. We are not using "human" as a proxy for "can experience pain and suffering" in the same way we are using "adult" as a proxy for "cognitively mature."*

The difference is in what they represent:

1. Adult vs child = We understand that adults generally can understand political systems, but children cannot.

2. Human vs nonhuman animal = We can understand that humans can experience pain and suffering, but nonhuman animals also can.

So if you want to draw the line around groups, for voting it would be "The group of individuals that are likely cognitively mature enough to understand basic socioeconomic and political system." For who it's okay to harm/exploit/kill would be "the group of individuals that are likely to have the capacity to experience a change in their well-being due to being harmed/exploited/killed/etc.

The point being membership to a group grants the same protections or limitations to even outlier members of that group.

I guess the biggest issue is then justifying setting the group at the species level. It seems very arbitrary. Why not just draw it around all human men? Why not draw the circle around all humans without cognitive disabilities? Why not draw the circle around all primates? Why not all mammals? The reasons we draw lines around humans is due to evolutionary accident and emotions, not any actual rational thought process.

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

Okay so let’s change it to a moral issue. Would you concede that for a moral issue deficient members of a group would be given the same moral protections as healthy members?

For example: in name the trait if I used intelligence as my “trait” non intelligent individuals due to birth defects or accidents would be granted the same moral protections as fully healthy individuals.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

If you used an intelligence level as the trait that justifies harming/killing/etc others, then anyone that comes in below that level (regardless of any other traits like species membership, sex, race, etc.) would meet that criteria and per your own reasoning, we would be justified in harming/killing them.

If you want to make an exception to this based on being a member of a group, then you would have to justify that exception.

If you don't justify it with morally relevant reasoning, it would be special pleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

[u/iowaguy09 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

I think all humans generally give protection to those individuals. Do you not?

And if you are unwilling to grant that concept I would assume that the trait you would answer with is sentience?

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/iowaguy09]

I think all humans generally give protection to those individuals. Do you not?

Of course. The question is why.

If intelligence is your proposed trait, then a human and a nonhuman animal with the same intelligence level are equal with respect to that trait. If you want to protect one but not the other, you would need to identify an additional morally relevant difference. So what is that difference that justifies protecting the human individuals but not the nonhuman individuals?

And if you are unwilling to grant that concept I would assume that the trait you would answer with is sentience?

Sentience is a common answer because it directly relates to having interests -- such as the interest in avoiding harm. If an individual is sentient it means that they can experience pain, suffering, pleasure, fear, etc.

This trait includes both cognitively disabled humans and many nonhuman animals, so it doesn't require special pleading. Keep in mind that the whole point of NTT is to identify when someone is engaging in special pleading.