Namethetrait

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Stee
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:00 am
Diet: Vegan

Namethetrait

Post by Stee »

I haven't read all of the other thread but I think the argument is invalid for a pretty straightforward reason.

Premise 1 is about the moral value of humans.

Premise 2 is about particular traits other animals have in relation to humans and the moral worth they grant.

The conclusion is about our doxastic attitudes and a conflicting worldview.

Nothing about premise 1 being true entails a belief that it is true. Nothing about premise 2 being true entails that that we must have a belief it is true. So how can a conclusion about us having a conflicting worldview be derived from simple facts about humans being of moral value and particular traits that animals have? Nothing about the person's beliefs are stated or entailed in the premises, so a conclusion that the person has conflicting beliefs if the conditions given aren't met are literally impossible to derive from them.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:07 am So how can a conclusion about us having a conflicting worldview be derived from simple facts about humans being of moral value and particular traits that animals have?
It can't, it's a non-sequitur. In order to show a contradiction, you'd need a premise stating that moral value must be justified by a such a trait.
Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:07 amNothing about the person's beliefs are stated or entailed in the premises, so a conclusion that the person has conflicting beliefs if the conditions given aren't met are literally impossible to derive from them.
The argument seems to be using the term "contradiction" in a colloquial sense rather than the philosophical sense used in formal logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Outside_formal_logic
Wikipedia wrote:Colloquial usage can label actions or statements as contradicting each other when due (or perceived as due) to presuppositions which are contradictory in the logical sense.
It relies on presuppositions (unstated assumptions about what people probably/implicitly believe) instead of premises. Of course, this kind of practice is not permitted in formal logic.

This is why I say it's fine as an informal argument, but there are serious problems with it in terms of formal logic. Many people have pointed out this issue and others.
Stee
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:00 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by Stee »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:37 pm
Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:07 am So how can a conclusion about us having a conflicting worldview be derived from simple facts about humans being of moral value and particular traits that animals have?
It can't, it's a non-sequitur. In order to show a contradiction, you'd need a premise stating that moral value must be justified by a such a trait.
Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:07 amNothing about the person's beliefs are stated or entailed in the premises, so a conclusion that the person has conflicting beliefs if the conditions given aren't met are literally impossible to derive from them.
The argument seems to be using the term "contradiction" in a colloquial sense rather than the philosophical sense used in formal logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Outside_formal_logic
Wikipedia wrote:Colloquial usage can label actions or statements as contradicting each other when due (or perceived as due) to presuppositions which are contradictory in the logical sense.
It relies on presuppositions (unstated assumptions about what people probably/implicitly believe) instead of premises. Of course, this kind of practice is not permitted in formal logic.

This is why I say it's fine as an informal argument, but there are serious problems with it in terms of formal logic. Many people have pointed out this issue and others.
I don't see how the colloquial usage would change anything about my criticism. If the claim is that some prior assumption is being contradicted, nothing about said beliefs have been established in the premises so the conclusion about a contradiction in some prior assumptions couldn't be derived from the premises. If it is used to describe a contradiction in behavior and beliefs (cognitive dissonance) the colloquial usage would only shift the conclusion to being about behavior instead of doxastic attitudes, or a combination of both instead of just doxastic attitudes. The premises don't establish anything about our behavior either...so the same basic criticism would still apply. Adding a premise about moral value being justified by traits wouldn't make his argument valid.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:54 pm I don't see how the colloquial usage would change anything about my criticism.
I'm just saying that they seem to be using the colloquial usage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSFudQ_HOQI

That is, not actually a contradiction, just something that seems like one to people.
Basically along the same sense as Alanis Morissette's use of Ironic in the titular song.

People don't understand what words mean.
Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:54 pmIf the claim is that some prior assumption is being contradicted, nothing about said beliefs have been established in the premises so the conclusion about a contradiction in some prior assumptions couldn't be derived from the premises.
Correct, as I said it's a non sequitur.
Stee wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:54 pm Adding a premise about moral value being justified by traits wouldn't make his argument valid.
The premise would have to be P3 that moral value must be justified by such a trait as explained in P2 (such that if it applied to us we would deem ourselves valueless).

However, then the problem becomes that P1 defines humans generally, and there isn't necessarily such a trait that would justify value in ALL humans. That would make at least one of the premises false.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by DrSinger »

My current NTT debunk is the following
''
The argument put forward by AY is equivalent to the following

P1 - no human can ever be valueless

P2 - the absence of no trait can cause a human to be valueless (follows directly from P1)

(traits absent in animals are a subset of all possible traits, hence the animal part is irrelevant)

(human cannot be a trait because this makes P2 internally contradictory, a human cannot lack human)

C - animals have value or you're contradicting yourself

clearly C doesn't follow, and P2 is irrelevant

Adding to this. P1 in Isaac's argument rejects the notion that human moral value is based on a trait, which makes P2 irrelevant, and C not follow.

i.e.
H(x)=x is human
M(x)=x has moral value

P1: H(x) -> M(x)

i.e. if x is human then x has moral value.

There is no way you can get around this or sneak in a trait. The argument is invalid.
''
I've challenged AY fans to debunk this numerous times, but of course none have.

Interested to hear any thoughts on it
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DrSinger wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:41 am P1 - no human can ever be valueless

P2 - the absence of no trait can cause a human to be valueless (follows directly from P1)
Do you mean "the absence of a trait can not cause a human to be valueless"?

Or "The absence of a trait could cause a human to be valueless; therefore no such trait could possibly be absent in humans"?

DrSinger wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:41 am (human cannot be a trait because this makes P2 internally contradictory, a human cannot lack human)
How is this contradictory if we assume it's impossible as per P1?
It's just a tautology that humans are humans.
It seems to satisfy the trait that would make humans valueless if it were true (because then they wouldn't be humans and P1 wouldn't apply anymore), but which can not be true by definition.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by DrSinger »

I guess I was thinking along the lines of 'if x were human and lacked human' (would this be a contradiction?) since that's how the argument is posed informally. But I see your point, human is simply a trait that by definition cannot be absent in a human.

Would you agree that P2 follows directly from P1?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DrSinger wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:23 pm Would you agree that P2 follows directly from P1?
Excepting the trait of being human, I suppose. Although NTT's P1 isn't the same; it could be seen as an empirical claim that implies that there simply is no such trait lacking in any humans, not that there couldn't be.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by DrSinger »

I would say that being human has to be exempt from the set of traits that 'if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless', since it cant be absent in humans.

I guess even if you did see it as an empirical claim based on a trait, the presence of that trait in animals wouldn't necessarily imply animals have value anyway right?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Namethetrait

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DrSinger wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:42 am I guess even if you did see it as an empirical claim based on a trait, the presence of that trait in animals wouldn't necessarily imply animals have value anyway right?
It wouldn't, because P2 in NTT has no teeth without a P3 to support it.
P3 would go something like this: Moral value must be justified by such a trait.
Post Reply