Great comments on new #namethetrait video

[brimstoneSalad]

Ask Yourself put out a new #namethetrait video (Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOgYX6Jqhl8 ), and there are some great comment threads there. I'm wondering if some of those people are forum members, and if they aren't they should be.

MindLessWiz1.png

Marcin-Michalski1.png

Mike-B1.png

The-Socratic-Yak1.png

Death-Valley-Druids1.png

Slawischstreiter1.png

[DrSinger]

It's great that people are waking up to it, and digging deeper into philosophy & logic to decipher it (including myself).

Notice how AY isn't 'trolling' UV vids like he said he would be, perhaps he's realised that NTT needs work.

[Commissaris]

Some great exchanges in there! I especially liked The Socratic Yak. Can't say I understood everything in every exchange though, these discussions get really specific really fast. On AY specifically: I think it's starting to sink in that logicians arguing against NTT (in its current formal form) have a point. It's interesting to see how both NTT and the concept of 'subjective morality' are coming under fire in these discussions. Thanks for sharing!

[DrSinger]

Not great comments according to AY

https://twitter.com/askyourself92/status/920319650835193857

[Commissaris]

Not great comments according to AY

Before I look: I bet he calls them trolls, or maybe nitpickers!

PS: dammit!

[DrSinger]

Doesn't properly address any of the criticisms and never has. Seems to think his argument can pass as a formal argument, whilst at the same time claiming that 'P1 - humans are of moral value' is a 'general statement', and that there are some humans, e.g. braindead humans, that don't have moral value.

[Commissaris]

Doesn't properly address any of the criticisms and never has. Seems to think his argument can pass as a formal argument, whilst at the same time claiming that 'P1 - humans are of moral value' is a 'general statement', and that there are some humans, e.g. braindead humans, that don't have moral value.

P1: Humans always have moral value.
P2: Non-sentient humans don't have moral value.
C: Non-sentient humans are not humans.

Checkmate, atheists. -____-

Why is it so difficult for him to specify "sentient" humans...

[Gregor Samsa]

I think POC applies here. P1 is not something I personally have an issue with as I can easily interpret it as a vagueish statement. Sure, if he wants to formalize the argument he should include 'sentient', but for the purposes of youtube videos I don't see it as a big deal.

[DrSinger]

It would still be an issue, since it would most likely be interpreted as 'all sentient humans have moral value' or 'a sentient human can never be valueless'. In which case, again, P2 would directly follow from P1.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think POC applies here. P1 is not something I personally have an issue with as I can easily interpret it as a vagueish statement. Sure, if he wants to formalize the argument he should include 'sentient', but for the purposes of youtube videos I don't see it as a big deal.

As an informal argument it's probably fine, the problem is he's claiming it as a formal argument and using the terminology of philosophy very incorrectly.
There are a number of additional premises you'd need to give his P2 teeth (like that such a trait is needed to justify moral value), beyond the "sentience" issue in P1.