Gray Sloth response to PV on #namethetrait

[Gregor Samsa]

I'm not entirely sure what Gary Sloth doesn't understand. Seems pretty straightforward once the hidden assumptions most of us make are exposed as just that. Assumptions. Just think about it this way, if moral subjectivism was actually logically contradictory in and of itself then literally no one could be a moral subjectivist in any philosophically interesting way and no philosopher would entertain the position (even if only to argue against it).

The weirdest thing is that they (Ask Yourself, Gray Sloth, and the rest of that gang) are claiming to BE subjectivists.

The thing is, he's not a subjectivist. He's a humpty dumptyist. A moral univeralist is not considered a subjectivist, so why would he use that term if he's not trying to be willfully misleading. It makes little sense. The comparison with words like 'feminism' is trivial at best since 'feminism' really is an umbrella-term and lacks a precise definition in the way (analytical) philosophical terms like moral subjectivist/objectivist do.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think much of it also comes down to them misunderstanding the term "contradiction" because they're using it in some vague colloquial sense and they don't understand that it has a rigorous meaning in philosophy.

Is this what they think contradiction means? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSFudQ_HOQI

The comparison with words like 'feminism' is trivial at best since 'feminism' really is an umbrella-term and lacks a precise definition in the way (analytical) philosophical terms like moral subjectivist/objectivist do.

That's a good point. I hadn't responded to that yet. I think the response is ultimately going to be a wiki page on this issue because it's just too extensive (the number and breadth of misconceptions) to cover in a simple linear essay.

[Gray Sloth]

And the moment that stops being the case, the moment the subjectivist cares enough about the wrongness of x that they wish to attempt to convince someone doing x that x is wrong... is the moment the subjectivist ceases to be a subjectivist) that most of us simply bring moral universalism along for the ride without even noticing how we've now occupied a seat.

Ask Yourself has explained this multiple times, the decision of whether something is good is subjective but once you subjectively decide what is good you can use all the objective tools of logic and science to determine what actions would generate the most good. The reason we can attempt to convince others doing x is wrong is because subjectively most people also hold that y is good and we can demonstrate logically that doing x is antithetical to y, and that it is a contradiction to simultaneously accept doing x to others while not accepting x being done to yourself where no trait distinguishing you from others could be named that if reversed would justify doing x to you. To restate for clarity, saying x is wrong and x is not wrong simultaneously for no given reason is a logically incompatible statement otherwise known as a contradiction. x might be right or wrong for a given reason, for example if x is imprisonment it's wrong to imprison the innocent but not wrong to imprison criminals, and the moment I become a criminal it becomes right to imprison me, there is a trait that can be named to distinguish when it is right and wrong to imprison people and that trait is criminality, but if you just say it's right to imprison you but wrong to imprison me without justification or meaningful difference between the two you have a double standard which produces a contradiction where imprisonment is right and wrong at the same time for no distinguishable reason.

[brimstoneSalad]

Gray Sloth, you said you weren't going to respond to my response to you, so I didn't read it or take the time to respond.
Have you changed your mind, and are you open to continuing dialogue?

Ask Yourself has explained this multiple times, the decision of whether something is good is subjective but once you subjectively decide what is good you can use all the objective tools of logic and science to determine what actions would generate the most good.

He's using incorrect definitions of "subjective" and "objective". You can look up these terms as I have recommended and read on them from legitimate sources in philosophy like the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy,

https://plato.stanford.edu/

If you are using definitions incorrectly, you are being intellectually dishonest. Like when Deepak Chopra says "quantum" or "energy" and pretends to talk about physics, but he's using new-age woo definitions and ignoring what these things actually mean in physics. Deepak Chopra is engaging in pseudoscience, Ask Yourself engaging in pseudo-philosophy; both are dishonestly using the jargon to give the appearance of credibility, but manipulating it and substituting colloquial and special definitions at will to trick people into believing what they say is credible (just in different domains, one in science and one in philosophy).

Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CgBHt55SHE

it is a contradiction to simultaneously accept doing x to others while not accepting x being done to yourself where no trait distinguishing you from others could be named that if reversed would justify doing x to you.

I have said it before, and this is probably the last time I will say it:

This is NOT a "logical contradiction"

You are misusing the term "contradiction" by using the colloquial sense in a logical context.

You can talk all you want about "energy" in the colloquial sense day to day, but as soon as you enter a scientific discussion you had better use the scientific definition of energy.

energy definition. In physics, the ability to do work. Objects can have energy by virtue of their motion (kinetic energy), by virtue of their position (potential energy), or by virtue of their mass (see E = mc2).

Energy does not mean power. It doesn't mean a spiritual force.

Failing to use the correct definitions for the context of the discussion so is intellectually DISHONEST.

The definition of contradiction you are using is NOT correct in a philosophical context.
When you enter a philosophical discussion, you must use the philosophical definition of these terms.
Do you deny we're having a philosophical discussion?

You are using something like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Outside_formal_logic
Or possibly this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Z5s8BKric

When you do that in a philosophical context you are being dishonest. It's like trying to play a game of chess by the rules of checkers. It's cheating.

To restate for clarity, saying x is wrong and x is not wrong simultaneously for no given reason is a logically incompatible statement otherwise known as a contradiction.

You are employing the fallacy of ambiguity and twisting people's claims to falsely generalize them.

It's wrong to kill a human.
It's not wrong to kill a non-human.

This is not a contradiction, it's only a double standard.

The way you dishonesty make it appear to be a contradiction is to rephrase it in a way that removes the specificity in the original statement, like so:

It's wrong to kill based on species.
It's not wrong to kill based on species.

You're incorrectly generalizing the claim.
This is not logically equivalent to the original specific statement about humans.
Your tactic here is inherently dishonest, because the person is not making that claim that species justifies murder, but that specifically not being human (only human species membership) justifies it.

If you do not understand the correct definition of contradiction, or the fallacy you are employing, we can try to explain it in another way.
You need to at least recognize that you have been using some of the wrong definitions here, and it's inappropriate to use "folk definitions" in a philosophical conversation. Philosophical definitions are much more precise and folk definitions are vague and full of contradictions; they are not appropriate for philosophical discourse.

x might be right or wrong for a given reason, for example if x is imprisonment it's wrong to imprison the innocent but not wrong to imprison criminals,

And if I dishonestly ignore your use of the word "innocent" and I say you're claiming it's both right and wrong to imprison people based on legal status, in the same way you dishonestly ignore the word "human" and claim people are saying it's both right and wrong to kill based on species?

and the moment I become a criminal it becomes right to imprison me,

So you wouldn't try to run or escape being imprisoned if you were being thrown in jail for, say, copyright infringement?
Or perhaps if you said something insulting about Islam, and you were imprisoned in a Muslim country? You'd be fine with that?

If not, aren't you saying law both justifies and does not justify imprisonment?
That's a contradiction!

That aside, I call bullshit on the idea that you'd just go to prison if you did something illegal even if you agreed with the law.
Murderers generally agree that murder should be illegal, but still don't want to go to prison when they murder. Just because people agree with something in principle doesn't mean they'll go along with it when it's their turn to face the music.

there is a trait that can be named to distinguish when it is right and wrong to imprison people and that trait is criminality,

Bullshit.

but if you just say it's right to imprison you but wrong to imprison me without justification or meaningful difference between the two you have a double standard

Yes, you have a double standard. That's 100% correct.

which produces a contradiction where imprisonment is right and wrong at the same time for no distinguishable reason.

False! It does not produce a contradiction. Double standards are not logically contradictory. There is a distinguishing reason: one person is "you" and one person is "me". It doesn't have to be a good reason, or a reason you personally like, to make it not a logical contradiction. It just has to be any difference whatsoever.

Double standards are not logical contradictions, although they can sometimes be contradictions in the colloquial sense. If you are attempting to use colloquial definitions in the context of a philosophical discussion, you're just intellectually dishonest.

[Daz]

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife.
This is NOT a contradiction.

To be fair, this example is not really relevant to the NTT discussion,
to make this relevent to #namethetrait it would look like this..

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife (I am of moral value)
p2 - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife (likewise there is no trait true of Bob, which if true of me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife)
p3 - It is moral to kill Bob with a knife
C - I kill Bob with a knife and it is moral

Do you agree that this is both a logical contradiction and invalid?

[DrSinger]

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife.
This is NOT a contradiction.

To be fair, this example is not really relevant to the NTT discussion,
to make this relevent to #namethetrait it would look like this..

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife (I am of moral value)
p2 - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife (likewise there is no trait true of Bob, which if true of me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife)
p3 - It is moral to kill Bob with a knife
C - I kill Bob with a knife and it is moral

Do you agree that this is both a logical contradiction and invalid?

There's no contradiction there because there's no premise connecting trait to being wrong to kill. If you wanted there to be a contradiction you'd need to have

(1) - It is wrong to kill me if and only if I have a certain trait (e.g. sentience)
(2) - For all traits, if it is wrong to kill me if I have possess the trait, then it is wrong to kill anyone who possesses the trait
(3) - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me make it moral to kill me
(4) - It is moral to kill bob

here (4) contradicts (1-3)

[Daz]

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife.
This is NOT a contradiction.

To be fair, this example is not really relevant to the NTT discussion,
to make this relevent to #namethetrait it would look like this..

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife (I am of moral value)
p2 - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife (likewise there is no trait true of Bob, which if true of me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife)
p3 - It is moral to kill Bob with a knife
C - I kill Bob with a knife and it is moral

Do you agree that this is both a logical contradiction and invalid?

There's no contradiction there because there's no premise connecting trait to being wrong to kill. If you wanted there to be a contradiction you'd need to have

(1) - It is wrong to kill me if and only if I have a certain trait (e.g. sentience)
(2) - For all traits, if it is wrong to kill me if I have possess the trait, then it is wrong to kill anyone who possesses the trait
(3) - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me make it moral to kill me
(4) - It is moral to kill bob

here (4) contradicts (1-3)

The point is that there is nothing that meaningfully distinguishes me from Bob that if true of me would deem me morally valueless. It is very important to mirror any trait proposed onto oneself in order to test to see if it would be ok to then discount my moral value based on that trait (because the whole point of this is to highlight that myself and Bob are indistinguishable in terms of moral value, unless you can actually name a trait, which you can't), and if I am of moral value and there is no meaningful difference between Bob and I in terms of moral value, then I contradict myself by saying that Bob is of no moral value and it is ok to kill him with a knife.

[DrSinger]

because the whole point of this is to highlight that myself and Bob are indistinguishable in terms of moral value, unless you can actually name a trait, which you can't

This is essentially one of the premises we are saying needs to be added, that moral value must be based on a trait. It is not simply a fact of logic

Have a look at the correction if you havent already, it might clarify what we are saying

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Correction

The argument you're basically making like this http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3660

P1 - If I am of moral value and there is no morally relevant difference between me and Bob then Bob is of moral value
P2 - I am of moral value
P3 - There is no morally relevant difference between me and Bob
C - Bob is of moral value

Which is valid, but is not equivalent to NTT.

[brimstoneSalad]

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife.
This is NOT a contradiction.

To be fair, this example is not really relevant to the NTT discussion,

You really don't understand what a logical contradiction is. I tried to explain it in the other thread. Can you please answer those questions I asked you?

Yes, that is relevant to NTT. I'm simplifying it to explain the nature of a contradiction. If you want, I'll frame it like this:

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife.
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife (despite my having no non-arbitrary justification for the difference).
This is NOT a contradiction.

to make this relevent to #namethetrait it would look like this..

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife (I am of moral value)
p2 - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife (likewise there is no trait true of Bob, which if true of me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife)
p3 - It is moral to kill Bob with a knife
C - I kill Bob with a knife and it is moral

Do you agree that this is both a logical contradiction and invalid?

P2 may contradict itself if you allow traits which are logically impossible to change. E.g. does P2 require time travel as Isaac has suggested?
Just the existence of p2 may make any argument that contains it invalid.

You need to frame it like this:

p2 - There is no trait or set of traits that is/are logically and metaphysically possible to change absent or present in Bob which if absent or present in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife

Aside from that (change it to consider only traits that are logically and metaphysically possible to change), it's not a logical contradiction to claim it's moral to kill Bob.
In terms of validity of the conclusion, there's no basis to deduce that "I kill Bob with a knife". It it not logically necessary that this actually happen just because it is moral.

For example, this does not follow:

P1 - Chocolate is delicious
P2 - I have a chocolate bar
C - I eat the chocolate bar

That's not how logic works. Do you understand that the only thing allowed in a conclusion is what is actually necessitated by the premises?

[Daz]

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife.
This is NOT a contradiction.

To be fair, this example is not really relevant to the NTT discussion,

You really don't understand what a logical contradiction is. I tried to explain it in the other thread. Can you please answer those questions I asked you?

Yes, that is relevant to NTT. I'm simplifying it to explain the nature of a contradiction. If you want, I'll frame it like this:

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife.
p2 - it is moral to kill Bob with a knife (despite my having no non-arbitrary justification for the difference).
This is NOT a contradiction.

to make this relevent to #namethetrait it would look like this..

p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife (I am of moral value)
p2 - There is no trait absent in Bob which if absent in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife (likewise there is no trait true of Bob, which if true of me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife)
p3 - It is moral to kill Bob with a knife
C - I kill Bob with a knife and it is moral

Do you agree that this is both a logical contradiction and invalid?

P2 may contradict itself if you allow traits which are logically impossible to change. E.g. does P2 require time travel as Isaac has suggested?
Just the existence of p2 may make any argument that contains it invalid.

You need to frame it like this:

p2 - There is no trait or set of traits that is/are logically and metaphysically possible to change absent or present in Bob which if absent or present in me would deem it moral to kill me with a knife

Aside from that (change it to consider only traits that are logically and metaphysically possible to change), it's not a logical contradiction to claim it's moral to kill Bob.
In terms of validity of the conclusion, there's no basis to deduce that "I kill Bob with a knife". It it not logically necessary that this actually happen just because it is moral.

For example, this does not follow:

P1 - Chocolate is delicious
P2 - I have a chocolate bar
C - I eat the chocolate bar

That's not how logic works. Do you understand that the only thing allowed in a conclusion is what is actually necessitated by the premises?

Yes I understand what a logical contradiction is. I have studied philosophy. I am merely saying that a logical contradiction doesn't always have to be as simple and black and white as the basic example you set out here
p1 - It is not moral to kill me with a knife
p2 - It is moral to kill me with a knife.
this example is so basic, and in such a little misleading and not really relevant to this discussion. It seemed you were implying that it is always as black and white as this.

Dr Singer has simplified the argument for me to make it clearer in his previous post..

P1 - If I am of moral value and there is no morally relevant difference between me and Bob then Bob is of moral value
P2 - I am of moral value
P3 - There is no morally relevant difference between me and Bob

This is logically consistent and valid and is what NTT essentially establishes (unless of course you can name a trait that distinguishes myself from bob that I would also accept if I had that trait), and if I were then to assert that it is ok to kill Bob with a knife and not accept the same treatment for myself then I would be logically contradicting myself.
I will jump onto the other thread and answer your questions when I get a sec..
Yes I agree with what you say about necessity for the basis of the conclusion above..