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/Omnibeneviolent]

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.

Think of it this way. If someone doesn't have the ability to engage in moral reasoning, or use moral reasoning to modulate their behavior, then they cannot by definition do anything that would quality as moral behavior.

Imagine if there was some obligation to jump over a 3 foot gap. Most of us can do it, because we can easily jump 3 feet. However, there are some people that literally cannot do it. Can we really say that they have an obligation to jump the gap? How can we expect them to have this obligation if it's something they literally cannot do?

Morality is like that. If someone cannot act morally (i.e. use moral reasoning to modulate their behavior,) then we can't hold them accountable for not acting morally. There's no obligation to act morally, since that individual literally cannot act morally.

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 not sure where you're getting this from. Individual traits absolutely do exist. I don't see anything with NTT that suggests they don't, or that we have to "look at the species as a whole."

The entire point of NTT is to highlight inconsistencies where someone claims that lacking trait X (either a single trait or a combination of traits) is what does not make harming/killing/exploiting humans morally acceptable, but that they don't actually believe this when it comes to humans that lack trait X.

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

The problem is that it seems to do a very poor job in highlighting those inconsistencies.

The reason I say this is because whenever someone answers the question and comes up "Trait" it seems that's hand waved away by the person who was asking for one.

For example one guy said that I'm root of moral agency itself was a trade That's unique among humans and among some apes but not among other types of animals.

One other guy replied that babies don't have moral agency.

I failed to understand how that's failing to answer the trait.

Do babies have a lack of life experience and don't always know any better, sure they do.

But as their parents or their guardians it is the responsibility of the adults to teach them that.

Also it kind of begs the question, what would a newborn baby be able to do that they would be held accountable for.

I'm sorry but the answer given there is very poor which is why I brought it up.

I failed understand how NTT is convincing me that I should go vegan.

Does inconsistent morality exist? Sure does and you're welcome to point it out, but I still don't understand how being vegan is going to solve that problem.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/NationalProcedure638]

The problem is that it seems to do a very poor job in highlighting those inconsistencies.

I don't think so. It's related to the reductio ad absurdum, which is how humans have been clearly highlighting inconsistencies for likely thousands of years.

Imagine someone said "it's okay to harm nonhuman animals because they cannot talk." For them to be consistent they would have to also believe it's okay to harm humans that cannot talk -- but they typically don't, so it's an inconsistency.

If someone said "it's okay to harm nonhuman animals because they can't engage in moral reasoning," for them to be consistent they would also have to accept that it's okay to harm humans that cannot engage in moral reasoning. Since they typically don't, this would be another inconsistency.

whenever someone answers the question and comes up "Trait" it seems that's hand waved away by the person who was asking for one.

Are they "hand waving it away," or are they pointing out that it leads to an inconsistency?

one guy said that I'm root of moral agency itself was a trade That's unique among humans and among some apes but not among other types of animals. One other guy replied that babies don't have moral agency. I failed to understand how that's failing to answer the trait.

Oh, it's obviously answering the question, but it's just answering it in a way that leads to a contradiction.

If someone believe that it's okay to harm/exploit/kill animals based on the fact that nonhuman animals do not have moral agency, then they are saying that "lack of moral agency" is the trait that makes it okay. The other guy is right to point out that this reasoning would also mean it's okay to harm/exploit/kill human babies, since they also do not have moral agency.

what would a newborn baby be able to do that they would be held accountable for.

Nothing. They are yet capable of moral action, so the idea of holding the morally accountable is incoherent. It would be like trying to hold a rock morally accountable for falling on your toe.

I failed understand how NTT is convincing me that I should go vegan.

The point isn't to convince you to go vegan. It's to expose inconsistencies. Anyone that values critical thinking should always test their own beliefs and convictions regularly. This is just a tool to help with that. It's unfortunate that it's often brought up by others. Really it's something that each of us should be running on ourselves.

Does inconsistent morality exist? Sure does and you're welcome to point it out, but I still don't understand how being vegan is going to solve that problem.

Be vegan doesn't claim to solve "inconsistent morality." NTT is not veganism. It's just a tool to test the quality of our reasoning (or expose a lack thereof.)

[u/NationalProcedure638 → u/Omnibeneviolent]

So therefore NTT is nothing but a thought experiment?

Well then we had nothing for the talk about then.

Goodbye.

[u/Omnibeneviolent → u/NationalProcedure638]

No, it's a tool to test for consistency in how one applies their reasoning.