Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

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.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Red »

Hey @Human_Garbage, we appreciate your concerns, but I must inform you about the forums number one rule:
Forum Rules wrote:1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.
Coming in, lecturing the forum, and refusing to engage with comments and criticism is a blatant violation of this rule. You have the following options:
  • Respond to other members to the best of your ability, and providing evidence where necessary.
  • Join other discussions and engage in discussion with the members there.
  • Leave the forum until you change your behavior and hostility towards rational discussion.
If you need time to do some extra research, that's fine, go for it. But, you must engage in debate and respond to criticism where necessary. Consider this a warning.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
Human_Garbage
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Human_Garbage »

Red wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:00 pm Hey @Human_Garbage, we appreciate your concerns, but I must inform you about the forums number one rule:
Forum Rules wrote:1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.
Coming in, lecturing the forum, and refusing to engage with comments and criticism is a blatant violation of this rule. You have the following options:
  • Respond to other members to the best of your ability, and providing evidence where necessary.
  • Join other discussions and engage in discussion with the members there.
  • Leave the forum until you change your behavior and hostility towards rational discussion.
If you need time to do some extra research, that's fine, go for it. But, you must engage in debate and respond to criticism where necessary. Consider this a warning.
I find it hilarious that my options for remediation of the crime of not wanting to discuss with someone as condescending as brimstone are to 1. Leave the forum (stop discussing with brimstone) and 2. Join other discussions (stop discussing with brimstone).
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Red »

Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:14 pm I find it hilarious that my options for remediation of the crime of not wanting to discuss with someone as condescending as brimstone are to 1. Leave the forum (stop discussing with brimstone) and 2. Join other discussions (stop discussing with brimstone).
I saw that you changed what was in the parenthesis from "stop discussing" to "stop discussing with brimstone," which actually makes you more in the wrong in some ways.

You have the option to discuss, but I fear that one seems out of the question. I hope you aren't like this in other debates, people will question your intelligence, interest, and honesty.

Joining other discussions wouldn't stop you from discussing with brimstone, since they are active in just about every topic of value. It'd be hard to escape a discussion with them if you're active on the forum.

And of course, you can leave and never come back, but I'm suggesting that you leave, change your mindset, and come back. Of course, if you don't change your mindset to change your mindset (catch 22), then you should probably leave (and you seem to be concurring with that statement). You can go back to playing terrible games like Undertale instead. That's much less intellectually demanding.

And if you don't appreciate brimstone being condescending (I consider it mildly amusing), then maybe you should leave the internet, if you're too sensitive for people who are critiquing you in such a manner.

The ball is in your court.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
Human_Garbage
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Human_Garbage »

Philo doesn't want to debate ask yourself because ask yourself screams retard every other sentence to whoever disagrees with him. I'm not going to discuss with brimstone who amounts to doing the same thing, and I don't even know why I'm discussing with you if you think what he's doing is in any way "amusing" or that I'm a sensitive snowflake or something for simply wanting to disengage from him. He's being rude, and you think it's funny that he's being rude. No thanks.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Red »

Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:33 pm Philo doesn't want to debate ask yourself because ask yourself screams retard every other sentence to whoever disagrees with him. I'm not going to discuss with brimstone who amounts to doing the same thing,
Is he really? From what I recall, Philo is doing the opposite, being civil, calm, and collected and giving proper arguments and responses. brimstone may be pushing your buttons, but is doing largely the same. Ask Yourself is extremely hostile to debate and criticism, and you're being a carbon copy of his behavior, save for all the insults.
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:33 pm and I don't even know why I'm discussing with you if you think what he's doing is in any way "amusing" or that I'm a sensitive snowflake or something for simply wanting to disengage from him. He's being rude, and you think it's funny that he's being rude. No thanks.
So you are a sensitive snowflake?

So, what is your choice? I gave you three, and looks like we're down to two. Here they are for clarification:
  • Respond to other members to the best of your ability, and providing evidence where necessary.
  • Join other discussions and engage in discussion with the members there.
  • Leave the forum until you change your behavior and hostility towards rational discussion.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
Human_Garbage
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Human_Garbage »

Philo can't be judged as calm, civil, or collected when he refuses to even enter the discussion, just like I am doing. There are certain characters of people who are not worth discussing with because they won't engage you honestly.

However, I can give it another shot. Just to spell it out for you, brimstone, and myself, I will collect all of his instances of empty ad hominem, and then I will proceed to provide accepted definitions of non-cognivism, which will prove I'm not a moral realist nor minimal realist by his own definition of minimal realism. I will show how my views are in congruence with this definition of non-cognivism. I'll even go into detail about how choosing not to engage someone in discussion you deem to be toxic is not a cowardly, immature, or unproductive move, but actually the opposite using consequentialist justifications. Then, I will wait for his response telling me I'm simply not well read, that i'm confused, factually wrong, and not intellectual enough to have this discussion because I like a character from undertale, and I will proceed to add a tally to my log of wasted evenings.
Roman0vmarisa
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:48 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Roman0vmarisa »

I mostly agree with @Lay Vegan about the “Name the Trait” argument, but I think he’s still missing one major flaw. Premise 2 being “There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans that would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.”

But what if I said the trait was “human” or “human genes?”  How can a human *not* be a human or *not* have human genes either now or any time in the past? It doesn’t make any sense that a human would ever lack the trait “human.”

What does everyone think about this?
User avatar
Human_Garbage
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Human_Garbage »

Roman0vmarisa wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:35 pm I mostly agree with @Lay Vegan about the “Name the Trait” argument, but I think he’s still missing one major flaw. Premise 2 being “There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans that would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.”

But what if I said the trait was “human” or “human genes?”  How can a human *not* be a human or *not* have human genes either now or any time in the past? It doesn’t make any sense that a human would ever lack the trait “human.”

What does everyone think about this?
Imagine for the sake of thought experiment that you could download someone's consciousness, and upload it into a computer.

You have a human, you took away their humanness, and yet most people would still consider that computer embedded consciousness to have moral value.

This all depends on how you define human. "Human" could be argued to be a collection of traits. In which case, losing one of those traits would make them nonhuman, which is what I do in my thought experiment.

To add: by accepting premise 1 "humans are of moral value", you've already accepted that moral value is derived from some trait, how else would you distinguish humans having moral value and not a pig? There must be some trait that makes humans different and therefore worthy of moral consideration.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Lay Vegan »

Roman0vmarisa wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:35 pm But what if I said the trait was “human” or “human genes?” How can a human *not* be a human or *not* have human genes either now or any time in the past? It doesn’t make any sense that a human would ever lack the trait “human.”

What does everyone think about this?
Good point, I neglected to mention this; premise 2 is nonsensical because it isn’t possible for a human not to be nor to have ever been human. As you mentioned, a human cannot be both human and inhuman simultaneously.

So NTT could technically become a valid argument due to internal contradictions. Check out principal of explosion here;
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion


@Human_Garbage Not sure if brimstoneSalad’s prodding caused you to skip right over my response to you, or if you’ve already dismissed me as a dishonest person (I hope the former is the case). Nonetheless, don't make claims here and expect for them not to be challenged.
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm Imagine for the sake of thought experiment that you could download someone's consciousness, and upload it into a computer.

You have a human, you took away their humanness, and yet most people would still consider that computer embedded consciousness to have moral value.
I think I’ve heard Ask Yourself respond with this hypothetical many a time, but unfortunately it doesn’t save you here, unless you’re willing to exclude essential traits (like human) from being considered in the argument. If you managed to “extract” one’s humanness via scanning and uploading their consciousness into a computer, then you’d result in a (formerly human) conscious computer simulation. You may already agree that premise 2 is self-contradictory. If I propose that humans who lack the trait “being human or having ever been human” not be valueless, then this would be logically incoherent. Afterall, a human who is not human, and who has never been human is a logical contradiction.
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm This all depends on how you define human. "Human" could be argued to be a collection of traits. In which case, losing one of those traits would make them nonhuman, which is what I do in my thought experiment.
Premise 2 isn’t asking about traits lacking in computer simulations, it’s asking about traits lacking in humans which if lacking in animals would render us valueless. And if these computer simulations are not human, then this isn’t relevant to the question.
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm To add: by acceping premise 1 "humans are of moral value", you've already accepted that moral value is derived from some trait, how else would you distinguish humans having moral value and not a pig? There must be some trait that makes humans different and therefore worthy of moral consideration.
Not necessarily, a subjectivist could grant humans moral value on a whim, without naming a trait, or even acknowledging that moral value is a function of traits at all. Perhaps who is considered morally valuable is just a product of my own arbitrary opinion?
User avatar
Human_Garbage
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Lay Vegan's "#NameTheTrait is a Terrible Argument for Veganism" - Response

Post by Human_Garbage »

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:47 pm @Human_Garbage Not sure if brimstoneSalad’s prodding caused you to skip right over my response to you, or if you’ve already dismissed me as a dishonest person (I hope the former is the case). Nonetheless, don't make claims here and expect for them not to be challenged.
I've been at a business trip and have generally only been able to reply via phone. I've been waiting to sit down with your response at a computer so I can tackle it bit by bit, and yeah, got matador'd into a different conversation. I'll respond here just because I think I have some immediate answers.
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm Imagine for the sake of thought experiment that you could download someone's consciousness, and upload it into a computer.

You have a human, you took away their humanness, and yet most people would still consider that computer embedded consciousness to have moral value.
I think I’ve heard Ask Yourself respond with this hypothetical many a time, but unfortunately it doesn’t save you here, unless you’re willing to exclude essential traits (like human) from being considered in the argument. If you managed to “extract” one’s humanness via scanning and uploading their consciousness into a computer, then you’d result in a (formerly human) conscious computer simulation. You may already agree that premise 2 is self-contradictory. If I propose that humans who lack the trait “being human or having ever been human” not be valueless, then this would be logically incoherent. Afterall, a human who is not human, and who has never been human is a logical contradiction.
Two ways I would address this.

First, I would say that we're talking about humans who we're human, but have been robbed of the humanness trait for the sake of the thought experiment. These are not humans who have "never been human", as you say. These are humans, who are now something else, and then we evaluate that new something for moral value.

Second, NTT is a tool for evaluating the consistency of one's own moral position. It does not assert what is moral, it does not have to account for one's selection of "arbitrary traits", it only needs to get people to admit that their selection of traits is arbitrary. I believe it is logically consistent (for me reinforce later), though not "sound" because I don't believe moral propositions can ever be sound.

You said in your video that you appreciate the argument being used in this way, just that you didn't think that's how Ask Yourself, or most people use it. This is how I use it. I don't think it makes sense to try to cross the is/ought divide and make arguments about moral truth.
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm This all depends on how you define human. "Human" could be argued to be a collection of traits. In which case, losing one of those traits would make them nonhuman, which is what I do in my thought experiment.
Premise 2 isn’t asking about traits lacking in computer simulations, it’s asking about traits lacking in humans which if lacking in animals would render us valueless. And if these computer simulations are not human, then this isn’t relevant to the question.
I think you mean traits lacking in animals, which if lacking in humans would render us valueless. So I'll respond to this as if that's what you said.

I agree that NTT should be steelmanned in it's exact language here, I'm not opposed to it. But it would still functionally be doing the same thing, and therefore I'd still call it NTT.

There's already semantic errors all over the place elsewhere. For example, it says "animals" instead of "non-human animals". You seemed to have given it the benefit of the doubt for this error, and assumed you knew what it meant. Just like I did with what you said.I would ask you do the same with the "human" and "ourselves" phrasing. Premise 2 implies that human is a collection of traits, if lacking the trait the animals lack that is proposed to make animals valueless, that new collection of traits (set of human traits - relevant trait) is what gets evaluated next ("ourselves").
Human_Garbage wrote: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:43 pm To add: by acceping premise 1 "humans are of moral value", you've already accepted that moral value is derived from some trait, how else would you distinguish humans having moral value and not a pig? There must be some trait that makes humans different and therefore worthy of moral consideration.
Not necessarily, a subjectivist could grant humans moral value on a whim, without naming a trait, or even acknowledging that moral value is a function of traits at all. Perhaps who is considered morally valuable is just a product of my own arbitrary opinion?
I agree, a subjectivist could grant humans moral value on a whim without naming a trait, but then they would be inconsistent if they didn't do the same thing for non-human animals. Sure, they can say "I don't care about consistency", and they're welcome to do that, NTT makes the inconsistency obvious, allowing rational people who value consistency to reject that subjectivist's moral system.

By accepting premise 1, "Humans are of moral value", you've already accepted that the trait "Humanness" gives something moral value. To say you don't acknowledge moral value as a function of traits at all means you wouldn't accept p1, and the argument fails from there.

Like I said, arbitrary opinions do not need to be accounted for by the argument, because all moral propositions are arbitrary in the ontological sense, anyway. I know that me making this claim depends on me providing a robust defense of moral anti-realism, I'll try to do that later.

By the way, Isaac nor myself even accepts p1, because neither of us think humanness is the trait by which we deem moral value. So I wouldn't say humans are of moral value because not all humans are. And yet, here I am in defense of NTT because I think it is an excellent litmus test for moral consistency.
Post Reply