My Problem With NTT

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.
Post Reply
McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Diet: Meat-Eater

My Problem With NTT

Post by McLovin »

Hi everyone. I dont like long messages, so I will try to keep this as short as possible.
As a non vegan, few months back, i start having discussions with vegans and I encountered NTT and I have problem behind a reasoning of AY, his fans, and reasoning of many other vegans.
As you are all aware of, AY asks for a trait and then uses the given trait to argue against the meat eater by aiming the human individuals who do not possess that trait, either at the given moment, or because of some disruption. I see that as deeply flawed reasoning.
Not to write a long message, but I think comparing normally functioning animal with abnormally functioning human, or young human, is category mistake fallacy.
And I dont see how having a trait right now is of any relevance. It seems pretty arbitrary.
It seems to me how that reasoning completely ignores biology and what we know. For example , humans are rational beings and newborn is a human, so it follows that newborn is a rational being, even though it cant rationalize right now. Sure, newborn's ability to rationalize is not actualized, but it is there in its nature. Or different example....Humans are bipedal beings and if landmine blow my legs off I would still be bipedal being, even though I lack legs. If someone cut my arms off and attach two additional legs, I would not stop being bipedal being, even though then I would have 4 legs.

That is the problem I have with the argument, so I am curious to know what people here think about it.
I will assume that there are vegans here who use the same reasoning, so if you think I am wrong in criticizing it, i would love to see why do you think that.
PhilRisk
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: My Problem With NTT

Post by PhilRisk »

For me three question arise:
1. What do you meant by "but it is there in its nature"?
2. Isn't this different from being bipedal if having 4 legs? In the case of the first question it is a potential, here it is a normal property.
3. Do you think that ethical value originates in being a member of a certain group, e.g.humans or because being an individual with certain actual(or potential) traits?
McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: My Problem With NTT

Post by McLovin »

PhilRisk

1.What humans inherently possess. The newborn inherently possess the ability to rationalize by virtue of being a human.
2.I said bipedal being, not the total number of two legs is being bipedal, what also makes it potential.
3.I will jump over this question, because I didn't say anything about ethical value, but isn't those two options you gave the same thing?
If we include potential traits, we must then look which specie the organism belongs, so we could know about what traits are we talking.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: My Problem With NTT

Post by carnap »

I've had similar thoughts in response to these style of arguments but my thinking is more neurological in nature. At some point in the argument a comparison is made to humans that have diminished mental capacities (because they are young, brain-damaged, etc) and these cases are imagined to be equivalent in some sense to the animal. But such comparisons are largely nonsensical because the underlying brain structures are vastly different which means we have no real basis for a comparison. That is to say, there is no brain-damage or genetic disease that is going to result in a human having anything close to a cow (or other animals) brain.

And it is in part this lack of knowledge that makes the human case problematic, we simply don't know just what brain-damaged, newborns, etc are experiencing and as such have no basis for a comparison. It is only when there is no question that the person is effectively brain-dead that ending their live is been to be acceptable.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: My Problem With NTT

Post by carnap »

Also just as a matter of strategy, the argument ignores widespread religious beliefs people have so its going to be unconvincing to a large portion people. That is, many view humans dualistically and don't necessarily think that humans are special because some particular trait but because we possess a soul and soul that exists whether you're a newborn, etc or a "normal" adult.
McLovin
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:59 am
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: My Problem With NTT

Post by McLovin »

carnap

I noticed that, too. it probably has something to do with majority of vegans (at lest from my experience) being atheists and completely disregarding religion as something valid.
Post Reply