Gray Sloth response to PV on #namethetrait

[Daz]

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.

Yes this argument is what I am making. What are the reasons you believe NTT is not equally sound and valid? The way I see it, moral value doesn't have to be based on a trait if the premise that I am of moral value or humans/people are of moral value is accepted. From there any trait or arbitrary assertion of difference concluding in non moral value I may assert between humans/me and an animal would have to be equally accepted by me if it were the case that I possessed/lacked this trait, if I wish to remain logically consistent...yes?

[DrSinger]

If moral value is not based on a trait then P2 is irrelevant, because you can just say animals dont have moral value (not because of any trait) and humans have moral value (not because of any trait), then agree with P1 & P2 and reject C.

Even the following would not be a valid argument

P1 - I have moral value
P2 - There is no difference between me and Bob
C - Bob has moral value

Because it is lacking the premise

P3 - If entity A has moral value and entity B does not have moral value then there must be a difference between entity A and entity B

or

P3 - If there is no difference between entity A and entity B then entity A is entity B

You'll notice that there is a premise like the former in the Schwitzgebel's argument that effectively says 'there has to be morally relevant difference to ground the difference in moral status' likewise NTT needs a premise 'that there must be a trait to ground the difference in moral status'

[brimstoneSalad]

Yes I understand what a logical contradiction is.

Do you understand that it is not the same thing as a double standard?
If not, then you do not understand what a logical contradiction is.

I have studied philosophy.

Then please share with us a formalization of #NTT, and a formal proof that it is valid.
I'd be glad to discuss your formalization and examine your proof.

Anybody with a background in mathematics should be able to figure out how to do that too, although it may take a few hours of reading up on syntax.

I am merely saying that a logical contradiction doesn't always have to be as simple and black and white

It does, unless you're using paraconsistent logic, which this is not doing because AFAIK "proof by contradiction" doesn't work in those systems. I think Nighcell or Philrisk mentioned this in the other thread.

Are you using paraconsistent logic here?

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,

That's what formal logic does. It reduces things down to the point where they are uncontroversial.

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.

I'm trying to explain what contradiction means.
And it is always black and white; ambiguity stemming from language or hidden assumption are a problem and not acceptable in formal logic. Those need to be cleared up.
If it's not "black and white" then logic is useless at compelling agreement.

If you are saying #NTT exists in the grey area, then you're admitting it's not formally valid (given it is asserting a logical contradiction).
The "grey area" arguments belong in the domain of informal argumentation.

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

This is fine, but this is not NameTheTrait. There are numerous differences here from #NTT.

Here P2 is essentially the same as P1 in NTT (given Isaac allows humans to be changed to a personal declaration), but in #NTT there are only two premises, and NTT's P2 is not equivalent to the combination of P1 and P3, which would be the conclusion:

"If I am of moral value then Bob is of moral value"

And if it were, the NTT P2 would read something like:
"IF we are of moral value then animals are of moral value"

NTT is very different.

(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.

You would only be contradicting a premise that would forbid this, not necessarily contradicting yourself since other assumptions might permit it.

NTT is distinct from that argument. Where that one is valid, NTT's form is not.

[Daz]

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

This is fine, but this is not NameTheTrait. There are numerous differences here from #NTT.

Here P2 is essentially the same as P1 in NTT (given Isaac allows humans to be changed to a personal declaration), but in #NTT there are only two premises, and NTT's P2 is not equivalent to the combination of P1 and P3, which would be the conclusion:

"If I am of moral value then Bob is of moral value"

And if it were, the NTT P2 would read something like:
"IF we are of moral value then animals are of moral value"

NTT is very different.

(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.

You would only be contradicting a premise that would forbid this, not necessarily contradicting yourself since other assumptions might permit it.

NTT is distinct from that argument. Where that one is valid, NTT's form is not.

I think a lot of your confusion lies in what seems to be an unstated assumption. Namely, that there IS already inherently some morally relevant difference between animals and humans (who are animals also) and thus NTT is attempting to bridge that gap. This is a false assumption and maybe what is causing your confusion with the logic here. For there is NO morally relevant difference between animals and humans TO BEGIN WITH (unless you can name a trait, which noone can). Hence the argument is essentially the same as the one laid out above featuring Bob (which you have admitted is sound and valid), for NTT is formulated to expose the contradiction in assuming that animals are different from humans in any meaningful way to begin with, as long as one already believes in human (hence animal) moral value. Perhaps it needs to be spelled out to the recipient that "If I am of moral value and there is no morally relevant difference between me and an animal then an animal is of moral value", however that is essentially what P2 of NTT is establishing (and, that there is no morally relevant difference between myself and an animal). How is that not clear?
You can lay in a few more premises just to absolutely spell that out but granted the person is of sane mind and body and rationale they should be able to understand this very basic logic (they certainly would if it was put in the context of human to human murder/exploitation), and the argument certainly is valid (remember it is a pragmatic argument designed to be used in debate/conversation as a tool to shine light on an assumed moral difference that isn't actually there). I'm sorry but just because there is some "hidden" premise that a strict logician would deem unstated with the formal argument, being cumbersom and quite irrelevent to the layman because it is a premise that any sane, rationale and intellectually honest person would agree with, doesn't mean the logic of the overall argument is not sound. It is the same as the argument stated above with Bob, and it seems you are simply nitpicking here for what reason I'm not sure. You certainly wouldn't feel the need to do this to a formal argument against killing other humans. I think the flaw lies in your assumption that there is a significant difference between human animals and other animals to begin with. Do you see what I'm saying here?

[brimstoneSalad]

I think a lot of your confusion lies in what seems to be an unstated assumption. Namely, that there IS already inherently some morally relevant difference between animals and humans (who are animals also) and thus NTT is attempting to bridge that gap.

No, I don't make that assumption. There are instrumental* differences, but not innate ones across the species'.

There is no confusion, #NameTheTrait is just logically invalid as I and others have been trying to explain to you, and have done in the other thread:

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3505&start=350#p35654
NightCell very kindly followed that up with further explanation:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3505&start=350#p35661

*Instrumental vs. Intrinsic: look it up, here's a summary: http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/intrinsic.html (first hit on Google)

Hence the argument is essentially the same as the one laid out above featuring Bob (which you have admitted is sound and valid)

The form is extremely different, and it's lacking important premises as we have explained to you.

Perhaps it needs to be spelled out to the recipient that "If I am of moral value and there is no morally relevant difference between me and an animal then an animal is of moral value"

YES.

THEN you must have another premise that clearly says there is no relevant moral difference.
Bam, then you win, you now have a valid argument and can make the case for veganism.

however that is essentially what P2 of NTT is establishing (and, that there is no morally relevant difference between myself and an animal). How is that not clear?

Because it literally is not establishing that. It only says there is no trait without clarifying that moral value is based on a natural and mutable trait, lacking in animals that would make humans lack moral value if lacking in them.

You can lay in a few more premises just to absolutely spell that out but granted the person is of sane mind and body and rationale they should be able to understand this very basic logic

You're asking your opponent to be so charitable as to rewrite your argument for you because you weren't capable of forming a logically valid argument?

Seriously?

If I'm your opponent, I'm not going to help you win by rewriting your argument for you. I'm going to point and laugh at the moron who doesn't understand basic logic.

Luckily we're all basically on the same side here (veganism), which is WHY we're trying to help you fix this argument so you can be successful with it.

(they certainly would if it was put in the context of human to human murder/exploitation)

Not necessarily. But we can expect people to be charitable to something they already believe.

and the argument certainly is valid (remember it is a pragmatic argument designed to be used in debate/conversation as a tool to shine light on an assumed moral difference that isn't actually there).

You're using valid in the colloquial sense. Like "your feelings are valid!"
The argument literally is not logically valid.
There's a loophole in it big enough to drive a super tanker through.

You can fix the argument and have something compelling, or you can leave it as it is and go around arguing for veganism with a laughably invalid argument.

I prefer you fix it, because I care about the vegan cause and I don't want people going around making us look like idiots who don't understand basic logic.

I'm sorry but just because there is some "hidden" premise that a strict logician would deem unstated with the formal argument, being cumbersom and quite irrelevent to the layman because it is a premise that any sane, rationale and intellectually honest person would agree with, doesn't mean the logic of the overall argument is not sound.

Yes, it literally does. If you disagree with that, you disagree with logic.

Just because you assume people will agree with a premise doesn't mean you can leave it out. Unless such a premise is literally one of the basic rules of logic (which this is not), you must include it.

And no, it's not more cumbersome, as I explained. It's pretty easily streamlined.
Including that premise also helps you in debate, because now instead of pointing and laughing at the idiot who can't even formulate a logically valid argument, your opponent must oppose this premise and make his or herself look insane.

It is the same as the argument stated above with Bob

It literally is not the same,
If you think they're the same, then use that argument instead: that one is valid and won't make you look like an idiot and make veganism look bad by extension.

and it seems you are simply nitpicking here for what reason I'm not sure.

It's not a nitpick, it's the difference between a valid and invalid argument.

It's like I'm disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 3, and I'm saying actually 1 + 1 = 2.
You think three is close enough to two, in fact here you are insisting that they are the same, and it's just a nitpick.
But one of these makes you look like a moron no matter how close they are because it's so obviously wrong to anybody with the most basic education in logic and an IQ north of a fruit fly.

I've told you the reason: I care about veganism, and I don't want stupid vegans making us look like idiots by going around and claiming the Earth is flat:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1829
That murder should be legal and that we'll have a paradise if we just take away all laws and government:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3571#p34959
OR by using such obviously invalid arguments like you're doing.

To a sensible person, you look the same as a flat-Earther or a radical "murder should be legal" Anarchist. It doesn't reflect well on veganism.

You certainly wouldn't feel the need to do this to a formal argument against killing other humans.

I would not, but only because I don't think any significant number of people are going around and killing other people based on the success or failure of a formal argument.
I would ignore the argument as an obviously ridiculous one, but I wouldn't worry that it's going to start a spree of murders just because of a failed logical argument against murder.
We're already pretty safe against the idea that murder is a good idea.

This case is different.

Carnism is rampant, and we rely at least in part on logical arguments to convince people it's not a good idea. The success or failure of these arguments can have serious impact on real animal suffering and dying because some idiot was too egotistical to fix his logical form with a needed premise or by changing a few words.

I am trying to help you CORRECT this argument because I give a shit about animals.

I think the flaw lies in your assumption that there is a significant difference between human animals and other animals to begin with. Do you see what I'm saying here?

I'm vegan, I'm not making the assumptions you think I am making.
No, the flaw lies with your inability to comprehend why this argument is invalid, how obviously invalid it is to intelligent opponents, and how much that can harm vegan efforts at promoting veganism when it's really pretty easy to fix if you'd just be humble enough to accept one of many proposed corrections.

[Daz]

I think a lot of your confusion lies in what seems to be an unstated assumption. Namely, that there IS already inherently some morally relevant difference between animals and humans (who are animals also) and thus NTT is attempting to bridge that gap.

No, I don't make that assumption. There are instrumental* differences, but not innate ones across the species'.

There is no confusion, #NameTheTrait is just logically invalid as I and others have been trying to explain to you, and have done in the other thread:

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3505&start=350#p35654
NightCell very kindly followed that up with further explanation:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3505&start=350#p35661

*Instrumental vs. Intrinsic: look it up, here's a summary: http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/intrinsic.html (first hit on Google)

Hence the argument is essentially the same as the one laid out above featuring Bob (which you have admitted is sound and valid)

The form is extremely different, and it's lacking important premises as we have explained to you.

Perhaps it needs to be spelled out to the recipient that "If I am of moral value and there is no morally relevant difference between me and an animal then an animal is of moral value"

YES.

THEN you must have another premise that clearly says there is no relevant moral difference.
Bam, then you win, you now have a valid argument and can make the case for veganism.

however that is essentially what P2 of NTT is establishing (and, that there is no morally relevant difference between myself and an animal). How is that not clear?

Because it literally is not establishing that. It only says there is no trait without clarifying that moral value is based on a natural and mutable trait, lacking in animals that would make humans lack moral value if lacking in them.

You can lay in a few more premises just to absolutely spell that out but granted the person is of sane mind and body and rationale they should be able to understand this very basic logic

You're asking your opponent to be so charitable as to rewrite your argument for you because you weren't capable of forming a logically valid argument?

Seriously?

If I'm your opponent, I'm not going to help you win by rewriting your argument for you. I'm going to point and laugh at the moron who doesn't understand basic logic.

Luckily we're all basically on the same side here (veganism), which is WHY we're trying to help you fix this argument so you can be successful with it.

(they certainly would if it was put in the context of human to human murder/exploitation)

Not necessarily. But we can expect people to be charitable to something they already believe.

and the argument certainly is valid (remember it is a pragmatic argument designed to be used in debate/conversation as a tool to shine light on an assumed moral difference that isn't actually there).

You're using valid in the colloquial sense. Like "your feelings are valid!"
The argument literally is not logically valid.
There's a loophole in it big enough to drive a super tanker through.

You can fix the argument and have something compelling, or you can leave it as it is and go around arguing for veganism with a laughably invalid argument.

I prefer you fix it, because I care about the vegan cause and I don't want people going around making us look like idiots who don't understand basic logic.

I'm sorry but just because there is some "hidden" premise that a strict logician would deem unstated with the formal argument, being cumbersom and quite irrelevent to the layman because it is a premise that any sane, rationale and intellectually honest person would agree with, doesn't mean the logic of the overall argument is not sound.

Yes, it literally does. If you disagree with that, you disagree with logic.

Just because you assume people will agree with a premise doesn't mean you can leave it out. Unless such a premise is literally one of the basic rules of logic (which this is not), you must include it.

And no, it's not more cumbersome, as I explained. It's pretty easily streamlined.
Including that premise also helps you in debate, because now instead of pointing and laughing at the idiot who can't even formulate a logically valid argument, your opponent must oppose this premise and make his or herself look insane.

It is the same as the argument stated above with Bob

It literally is not the same,
If you think they're the same, then use that argument instead: that one is valid and won't make you look like an idiot and make veganism look bad by extension.

and it seems you are simply nitpicking here for what reason I'm not sure.

It's not a nitpick, it's the difference between a valid and invalid argument.

It's like I'm disagreeing that 1 + 1 = 3, and I'm saying actually 1 + 1 = 2.
You think three is close enough to two, in fact here you are insisting that they are the same, and it's just a nitpick.
But one of these makes you look like a moron no matter how close they are because it's so obviously wrong to anybody with the most basic education in logic and an IQ north of a fruit fly.

I've told you the reason: I care about veganism, and I don't want stupid vegans making us look like idiots by going around and claiming the Earth is flat:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1829
That murder should be legal and that we'll have a paradise if we just take away all laws and government:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3571#p34959
OR by using such obviously invalid arguments like you're doing.

To a sensible person, you look the same as a flat-Earther or a radical "murder should be legal" Anarchist. It doesn't reflect well on veganism.

You certainly wouldn't feel the need to do this to a formal argument against killing other humans.

I would not, but only because I don't think any significant number of people are going around and killing other people based on the success or failure of a formal argument.
I would ignore the argument as an obviously ridiculous one, but I wouldn't worry that it's going to start a spree of murders just because of a failed logical argument against murder.
We're already pretty safe against the idea that murder is a good idea.

This case is different.

Carnism is rampant, and we rely at least in part on logical arguments to convince people it's not a good idea. The success or failure of these arguments can have serious impact on real animal suffering and dying because some idiot was too egotistical to fix his logical form with a needed premise or by changing a few words.

I am trying to help you CORRECT this argument because I give a shit about animals.

I think the flaw lies in your assumption that there is a significant difference between human animals and other animals to begin with. Do you see what I'm saying here?

I'm vegan, I'm not making the assumptions you think I am making.
No, the flaw lies with your inability to comprehend why this argument is invalid, how obviously invalid it is to intelligent opponents, and how much that can harm vegan efforts at promoting veganism when it's really pretty easy to fix if you'd just be humble enough to accept one of many proposed corrections.

Lol ok, so when I am discussing the logic of veganism I will merely point out to the person with whom I am talking the extremely basic logic that should have been learnt in primary school, that "if I am of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between myself and you, then you are equally of moral value. (duh).. And of course, in the same light, if you are of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between yourself and an animal, then that animal is also of moral value".. Perhaps this can be an introduction, for perhaps when talking with people who eat animals they actually don't understand this (even though everyone understands this unless they are a psychopath)... Said person will of course most likely say, "well, there are morally relevant differences between humans and animals".. To which I would reply, "interesting you should say that.." Then ask them to NTT that is morally relevant, and hence the argument can be used to highlight the lack of morally relevant differences between human animals and all other animals. Logical?

[vdofthegoodkind]

Lol ok, so when I am discussing the logic of veganism I will merely point out to the person with whom I am talking the extremely basic logic that should have been learnt in primary school, that "if I am of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between myself and you, then you are equally of moral value. (duh).. And of course, in the same light, if you are of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between yourself and an animal, then that animal is also of moral value".. Perhaps this can be an introduction lol for perhaps when talking with people who eat animals they actually don't understand this (even though everyone understands this unless they are a psychopath)... Said person will of course most likely say, "well there are morally relevant differences between humans and animals".. To which I would reply, "interesting you should say that.." Then ask them to NTT that is morally relevant, and hence the argument can be used to highlight the lack of morally relevant differences between humans animals and all other animals. Logical?

Hey Daz, 2 questions:
1) Do you believe we have a moral obligation to take care of the mentally disabled and provide them with a lifestyle free from hunger, stress, cold, etc? (like pretty much EVERY person in western society believes, aka you'll be holding an absurd belief on par with the retard holocaust if you disagree)
2) Name the trait absent in animals, but present in mentally disabled humans, that if absent in mentally disabled humans, would justify leaving them to their own devices in the wild as we do with animals?

AY and VG both previously they said they have no moral obligation to go out of their way to prevent people from dying. The amount of time, money and resources it takes to take care of a mentally disabled person from birth till death DEFINITELY qualifies as "going out of your way".
In other words, they think it's morally acceptable to just stop taking care of the mentally disabled.

Another one of their beliefs is that they think it's ok to kill pest animals such as rats, and other rodents, cockroaches, and other insects, if those animals threaten their wellbeing and/or steal their resources (which is the reason AY cites to justify consuming plantfoods grown by pesticides) if there's no readily available alternative that doesn't require you to go out of your way.
Now what do you think will happen to all those mentally disabled people AY and VG say we have no moral obligation to care for?
Odds are they will start wandering the streets, and depending on their disabled level, start to severally harrass people in order to try to feed themselves. Surprise surprise, Vegan Gains and Ask Yourself say it's ok to kill rodents and insects when they threaten your wellbeing and there's no readily available alternative of dealing with them that doesn't require going out of your way. Unless you can name the trait that differentiates rodents and severely mentally disabled people, it should by the logic of name the trait be totally acceptable to kill all those mentally disabled people we dont have a moral obligation to care for, who start harrassing us and steal our resources.

WOW!!! AY and VG's "logic" supports the retard holocaust. Voila, in that case I can solve name the trait and actually be totally consistent. (even despite AY's wrong usage of the word "consistent")
I name "intelligence" as the trait, and accept that the retard holocaust is normal. Obviously AY nor you can call that an absurd view, because it's a view that you yourself hold if you cant name the trait I asked you to in question 2.


And this is just one of the many, MANY, reasons why name the trait is a completely retarded argument. And that's irrespective of it being in AY's form or in Philovegan's form.

[vdofthegoodkind]

I'm bored this christmas morning, let's do another one..

Let's talk about driving. AY states he accepts accidentally killing animals in traffic because he accepts being accidentally killed in traffic.
That's telling HALF the story. He accepts being killed in traffic because of the huge PERSONAL advantages of allowing driving in society.
Allowing cars severely boosts the efficiency of our economy, which enormously raises our standard of living, which in turn raises our life expectancy and pleasure level way higher to compensate for the risks involved in traffic to us as humans.
However when it comes to all other nonhuman forms of sentient life on this planet... the effects of a more booming economy are generally completely DISADVANTAGEOUS to those lifeforms.

A fitting analogy would be if the richest 1% of people were able to buy a flying car which only benefits them personally, and which had a really high rate of randomly losing explosive parts which ended up on the streets destroying property and killing random people. Would you accept them to drive/fly those over public roads? Would you think it's moral if they did while being sure they would accidentally kill multiple people over the course of their lifetime?
I HIGHLY doubt you do.

So that means you simultaneously accept being killed by transportation devices when there's no personal advantages to you when it comes to animals, and dont accept being killed by dangerous transportation devices when there's no personal advantages to you when it comes to YOU. In the words of AY: You're being "inconsistent".


And ps: Actually all this was telling a QUARTER of the story. AY accepts being killed in traffic because of the huge PERSONAL advantages of allowing driving in society AND given the limited risks involved to him as a human.
I didnt even mention that the annual amount of animal deaths in traffic is over THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than the annual amount of human deaths in traffic. (brasil: 85 MILLION animal fatalities vs 40 THOUSAND human fatalities, https://www.thedodo.com/road-kill-every-day-1392772624.html + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)
Imagine that regular cars where SO unsafe that they killed as many humans as they kill animals. No way in hell would they be allowed, nor would it EVER be viewed as "moral" to drive one.

Ps2: My bad, all this was telling a TENTH of the story. AY accepts being killed in traffic because of the huge PERSONAL advantages of allowing driving in society AND given the limited risks involved to him as a human AND provided certain safety precautions are in place that protect him as a human even further.
Also one thing I didnt mention... We have substantial safeguards in place to ensure the safety of humans as much as possible. School zones, no drinking and driving, etc.
EVERY road is equivalent to a school zone when it comes to nonhuman animals. In order for AY's analogy to even remotely work, the speed limit everywhere needs to be the same as the speed limit in a school zone. I think you can agree it's not exactly moral to go 70mph through a school zone, because you know there is a chance an unwitting kid might jump out of nowhere and cross the road, right?
If you wanna be even remotely consistent in your beliefs, you then have to acknowledge that it's not moral to go 70mph on a highway, for the exact same reason that an unwitting animal might jump out of nowhere and cross the road.

Ps3: The point of all this is, if you, AY, and everyone else in western society are all inconsistent vs NTT when it comes to taking care of the mentally disabled, and when it comes to driving (and the trillion other areas I could name), why should a meat eater care about being inconsistent vs NTT when it comes to the one particular case of eating meat. Makes no sense whatsoever to give some kind of special status to that particular area over all the other ones.

[Daz]

Lol ok, so when I am discussing the logic of veganism I will merely point out to the person with whom I am talking the extremely basic logic that should have been learnt in primary school, that "if I am of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between myself and you, then you are equally of moral value. (duh).. And of course, in the same light, if you are of moral value, and there is no morally relevant difference between yourself and an animal, then that animal is also of moral value".. Perhaps this can be an introduction lol for perhaps when talking with people who eat animals they actually don't understand this (even though everyone understands this unless they are a psychopath)... Said person will of course most likely say, "well there are morally relevant differences between humans and animals".. To which I would reply, "interesting you should say that.." Then ask them to NTT that is morally relevant, and hence the argument can be used to highlight the lack of morally relevant differences between humans animals and all other animals. Logical?

Hey Daz, 2 questions:
1) Do you believe we have a moral obligation to take care of the mentally disabled and provide them with a lifestyle free from hunger, stress, cold, etc? (like pretty much EVERY person in western society believes, aka you'll be holding an absurd belief on par with the retard holocaust if you disagree)
2) Name the trait absent in animals, but present in mentally disabled humans, that if absent in mentally disabled humans, would justify leaving them to their own devices in the wild as we do with animals?

AY and VG both previously they said they have no moral obligation to go out of their way to prevent people from dying. The amount of time, money and resources it takes to take care of a mentally disabled person from birth till death DEFINITELY qualifies as "going out of your way".
In other words, they think it's morally acceptable to just stop taking care of the mentally disabled.

Animals are completely at home in the wild. They are perfectly equipped to live their lives in the most fulfilled and enjoyable way in the wild, without human interference... I don't understand your point here? IF we came across an injured, sick or the equivalent of a mentally retarded animal, we would no doubt feel empathy with the creature and want to help it, shelter it, nurse it back to health etc. Which is what you find humans doing in general with these sorts of animals, given they are in the position too. I personally have come across sick, lost or injured animals many times in my life and have done everything I can to look after them, feed them, get them help, help them find their home, etc.It works the same with mentally disabled humans, given people are in the position to help them, we tend to do just that. So you see, the analogy doesn't fit. Animals are not mentally retarded haha in fact quite the opposite, they are fully equipped as a result of millions of years of evolution with all the intelligence and skills necessary to survive and thrive, have families, friends and longevity etc within their natural environment. Perhaps better than humans would if humans were thrown into the wild.

And as far as going out of ones way to take care of the mentally disabled, I certainly don't do this.. Do you? I wouldn't be spending my days looking after mentally disabled people and I'm sure you wouldn't either. Perhaps you would if it was your brother or sister, some type of immediate family, but as a moral obligation I don't think there is any for you to spend your time looking after random mentally disabled humans. Surely this isn't what you are suggesting? We look after them as a society because as a society we can afford to do so. We have a tax system that we all contribute to and that pool of money is divided up, a portion of that goes to looking after the disabled etc because we have empathy for them. If our society crumbled and we went into a depression and didn't have the resources to look after them anymore, well it would be up to individuals to dedicate their own time to them.

[vdofthegoodkind]

Animals are completely at home in the wild. They are perfectly equipped to live their lives in the most fulfilled and enjoyable way in the wild, without human interference... I don't understand your point here? IF we came across an injured, sick or the equivalent of a mentally retarded animal, we would no doubt feel empathy with the creature and want to help it, shelter it, nurse it back to health etc. Which is what you find humans doing in general with these sorts of animals, given they are in the position too. I personally have come across sick, lost or injured animals many times in my life and have done everything I can to look after them, feed them, get them help, help them find their home, etc.It works the same with mentally disabled humans, given people are in the position to help them, we tend to do just that. So you see, the analogy doesn't fit. Animals are not mentally retarded haha in fact quite the opposite, they are fully equipped as a result of millions of years of evolution with all the intelligence and skills necessary to survive and thrive, have families, friends and longevity etc within their natural environment. Perhaps better than humans would if humans were thrown into the wild.

First of all, most mentally disabled people that are incapable of functioning in human society are still WAY more intelligent than your average chimpanzee, let alone other nonprimate animals. You could ditch all mentally disabled people in the woods near a river, and they wouldn't just all die (especially if you leave them with some bats/machetes and occasionally fly over and drop some care packages with matches or lighters or whatever all over the place).
The only thing that would happen is they would experience a shitload of stress, hunger and thirst, and have a decreased life expectancy compared to if they are taken care of by society, just like ALL OTHER ANIMALS do.

Second, WANTING to help some creature due to empathy, and BEING MORALLY OBLIGATED to help some creature are two VERY different things. If you say you are morally obligated to help someone, like a retarded person/animal, in need, then AY and VG's "moral baseline" bullshit defense to justify their consumption of luxury items in favor of donating their money to helping others in need, falls completely to shit.
If you say you are NOT morally obligated to help someone in need, then the retard holocaust becomes morally permissable, and anyone can name 'intelligence' as the trait without you being allowed to call their view absurd.