Name the trait, "to be moral" and moral subjectivity

[Blua]

Hi!

I need some help with name the trait.The original version seems to be confusing to many people but I expected a simplified version like "what are the characteristics that has a cow that makes it moral to kill them for food" to be useful. But, I´ve had someone answering "not being a human". When I said that this was arbitrary, they didn´t see why it´s arbitrary and although I see it is, I didn't know how to explain logically why it is. So, I replayed, "ok, so, what is the reason why we don´t kill humans for food?" Hoping that they would say "they want to live or they feel pain or they suffer" so as I could argue that animals too. But they answered "I don´t know, I just feel that they are like me and I couldn't do it". I said "isn´t it because you know they have the right to live or because they would suffred?" and they replayed "no, it's because my instinct tells me not to hurt another human".
So, how can I explain in logical terms what´s an arbitrary trait and what not? And, how much success have you guys found using "Name the trait" in street outreach?

I have the intuition of the meaning of something "to be moral or ethic" but when I say "this is not moral" or "it's morally wrong" I always expect someone asking "why?". So, let´s say that I say "I think it´s not moral to kill someone that doesn´t want to die". And someone says..."why?"... I really cannot find a logical answer. Is there actually a way for anyone that doesn´t understand this intuitively to grasp it if explained logically? If so, what could be a good logical explaination?

Finally, for people that say that morality is subjective, is there anything else that can be said appart from the fact that if we accept that then anyone would be entitled to do whatever they wanted?

I´m a biologist, not a philosopher. So, although my intention is to start educating myself about advocacy strategies based on the ethics of veganism I may need an explanation for dummies

[teo123]

I suppose that most vegans think that "that trait" is sentience, but I don't think it is. I think "that trait" is the ability to suffer. I don't think it's immoral to eat sharks or sterlets, as they have no nociceptors and thus (unless you assume that neuroscience is all wrong) cannot feel physical pain, and they don't have remotely enough complex brain to feel some other kind of suffering. Sharks and sterlets are arguably sentient, as "sentient" means having senses (they have eyes to see...), but that, in my opinion, is not enough to make it immoral to kill and eat them.
@brimstoneSalad thinks that the problem with my view is that there are human beings who cannot feel pain (congenital insensitivity to pain) and that it's nevertheless immoral to murder them. I don't think that's a good point, as human beings (including those with congenital insensitivity to pain) have complex brains capable of other types of suffering. Fish don't have that. Now, whether or not higher fish can feel physical pain is a lot more complicated (as higher fish do have nociceptors), but I expect the answer to be no (due to the problem with fish lacking type-c neurofibers and fish not behaving as if they feel pain).

[Blua]

Actually, fish seem to behave as if the feel pain: Evolution of nociception and pain: evidence from fish models
Lynne U. Sneddon
Published:23 September 2019

Regarding sharks, I don't think we can be a 100% sure that they don't experience some kind of suffering. So, since we cannot be a 100% I would still consider it immoral to fish them.

[teo123]

Actually, fish seem to behave as if the feel pain

The fact is that there are many observations which strongly suggest they don't. A fish with a hole in its fin continues swimming normally. A hooked fish continues struggling forever, rather than just for the first few minutes, very unlike a bear that's been trapped. And there are parasites which do all sorts of horrible things to fish'es body... without affecting its behaviour. Have you read the Rose's paper "Why Fish (most likely) don't Feel Pain"?

Evolution of nociception and pain: evidence from fish models

I must admit I don't understand that paper. So, the author is arguing that fish can feel pain in spite of not having type-c neurofibres because type-a-delta neurofibers in fish play the same role as type-c neurofibers do in birds and mammals, right? Yet, at the same time, she is arguing that the evolution of pain in vertebrates is "continuous" from fish to mammals. How is that possible? If fish use type-a-delta neurofibers to feel pain, doesn't that mean the ability to feel pain evolved independently in them? Did tiktaalik feel pain? Do modern-day amphibians feel pain? What about reptiles?

Regarding sharks, I don't think we can be a 100% sure that they don't experience some kind of suffering. So, since we cannot be a 100% I would still consider it immoral to fish them.

But we can never be 100% certain of anything. For which living things do you think we can be absolutely certain they don't feel pain? Jellyfish? Sponges? Plants? Bacteria?

[brimstoneSalad]

Sorry @Blua, you've encountered our resident quacky coinspiracy theorist Teo.
He has been explicitly told to stop this trolling about fish pain, when consensus is clearly that they do experience negative sensation, and to some degree pain.
@teo123 You were warned about this.

I've been busy so I'm sorry I didn't catch your post until just now. I will try to respond shortly.

[brimstoneSalad]

Regarding sharks, I don't think we can be a 100% sure that they don't experience some kind of suffering. So, since we cannot be a 100% I would still consider it immoral to fish them.

They have brain and display learning behavior, which indicates they have preferences.
Aside from it being unfalsifiable to us with the current state of technology, it actually doesn't matter if a preference is hypothetically positive (seeking) or negative (avoiding), outside the black box of the mind it has the same effect on actual observed behavior. The decision by e.g. negative utilitarians to value one and not the other is entirely arbitrary, and that arbitrarity discredits the claimed moral system.

A valid objective moral system can not suffer arbitrary axioms like that. What matters only is that a being wants for some states of experience of existence rather than others, and those preferences can be respected.

The fact is that there are many observations which strongly suggest they don't. A fish with a hole in its fin continues swimming normally. A hooked fish continues struggling forever, rather than just for the first few minutes, very unlike a bear that's been trapped.

That doesn't suggest they don't feel pain. That suggests that those areas are not very sensitive for them. And I've explained why fish may not have the same kind of sensitivity; there's not a major risk of them doing more damage to themselves in a normal environment. A fish hook is not part of a fish's evolved habitat.

And there are parasites which do all sorts of horrible things to fish'es body... without affecting its behaviour.

Many fish respond to parasites by attempting to scrape them off. There was a whole thing about sharks being the ocean's itch scratchers.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-fishes-sh ... olved.html

I must admit I don't understand that paper.

You don't understand any of this, including my repeated answers to your questions which you still ask over and over again. This is why you should step out of these discussions until you understand the topic better. You're bothering people.

But we can never be 100% certain of anything. For which living things do you think we can be absolutely certain they don't feel pain? Jellyfish? Sponges? Plants? Bacteria?

Jellyfish are unlikely. They only have a few thousand nerves in distributed clusters that are like primitive pre-brain processing centers.
All of the rest do not experience pain, because they can't experience anything. Pain in and of itself isn't relevant, but none of those organisms have the capacity for sentience.

[brimstoneSalad]

But, I´ve had someone answering "not being a human". When I said that this was arbitrary, they didn´t see why it´s arbitrary and although I see it is, I didn't know how to explain logically why it is. So, I replayed, "ok, so, what is the reason why we don´t kill humans for food?"

I find constructiuvely arguing for objective morality more useful, however, if you use NTT you need to deconstruct. Ask what being human means.

Is it having human DNA?
Does a tumor have rights?
Does a human cell culture?
Does a fertilized egg, a fetus?
If you were infected with a retrovirus that changed your DNA and made it incompatible with humans, would you lose moral value?

Establish the claim itself, as if it were an authoritative rule. You don't ask why that rule, instead you ask for clarification OF the rule.

So, how can I explain in logical terms what´s an arbitrary trait and what not? And, how much success have you guys found using "Name the trait" in street outreach?

Arbitrary traits are allowed in NTT, that's a chief issue. I don't generally use it. But I sometimes respond to carnists making trait arguments. The easiest response is through deconstruction sometimes rather than changing the topic.

So, let´s say that I say "I think it´s not moral to kill someone that doesn´t want to die". And someone says..."why?"... I really cannot find a logical answer. Is there actually a way for anyone that doesn´t understand this intuitively to grasp it if explained logically? If so, what could be a good logical explaination?

It's because morality by definition involves respect for the interests of others.
You can't respect the interests of a rock or a plant, because it has none.

Finally, for people that say that morality is subjective, is there anything else that can be said appart from the fact that if we accept that then anyone would be entitled to do whatever they wanted?

That's pretty much just it: moral subjectivity makes morality meaningless as a concept. If it has any use, it's because it's objective. Some people argue that objective morality is impossible, and if they're honest, they're basically dismissing morality entirely in favor of personal whim. If you show them it IS possible, some of them will come around to its usefulness.

The utility of morality is in discourse relating to correct action, and it's the only alternative to appeals to emotion and violence. It's the use of rational argument to appeal to some common principle of right action, if the person finds that to be of value (and there's good rational argument to be made that it should be), then it can be compelling.

Anyway, if you're using NTT, it's through deconstruction. Take the claim apart and have it defined in every possible way and every scifi edge case. As a biologist that should be trivial for you to deconstruct what a species is, etc.
It's possible the person will realize he or she is building an absurd ad-hoc system to prop up a mistaken ethic. It's also possible the person will build such a system and have no problem with it. NTT has no answer to the latter, although it can make the person appear absurd to onlookers. Most people don't want to be seen as unreasonable or irrational, but some are fine with it.