Great comments on new #namethetrait video

[PhilRisk]

∄t(∀y(Ay -> -Fyt)&∀x((Hx&-Fxt) -> -Mx))

Whether this is really adequate I am not certainly sure.

We can decompose the statement in two equivalent statements by conjunction elimination :

∄t(∀y(Ay -> -Fyt)&∀x((Hx&-Fxt) -> -Mx))

would become :

∄t(∀y(Ay -> -Fyt))
∄t:∀x((Hx&-Fxt) -> -Mx))

According to P1 "∄t:∀x((Hx&-Fxt) -> -Mx)" will evaluate to True. And "∄t(∀y(Ay -> -Fyt)" would be evaluated to false by finding the trait to be "human DNA". Every animals lack this trait.

Conjunction elimination cannot be applied directly, because of the negated existential quantifier. Otherwise out of the proposition "there is no intelligent vegan"=∄x(Ix&Vx) would follow "there is no vegan"=∄xVx and "there is nothing intelligent"=∄x(Ix).

[Nightcell001]

Conjunction elimination cannot be applied directly, because of the negated existential quantifier. Otherwise out of the proposition "there is no intelligent vegan"=∄x(Ix&Vx) would follow "there is no vegan"=∄xVx and "there is nothing intelligent"=∄x(Ix).

Actually you can when the two propositions do not depend on the variable quantified upon. In your case you can evaluate the truth value of the two propositions independently. In your example "intelligent vegan" you can't do that indeed.
Removing P1 would make the trick impossible though.

[Nightcell001]

Hey guys. Here is my attempt of formal translation of the argument.
I would love to have your feedback : @PhilRisk @DrSinger @brimstoneSalad

[PhilRisk]

Conjunction elimination cannot be applied directly, because of the negated existential quantifier. Otherwise out of the proposition "there is no intelligent vegan"=∄x(Ix&Vx) would follow "there is no vegan"=∄xVx and "there is nothing intelligent"=∄x(Ix).

Actually you can when the two propositions do not depend on the variable quantified upon. In your case you can evaluate the truth value of the two propositions independently. In your example "intelligent vegan" you can't do that indeed.
Removing P1 would make the trick impossible though.

Yes, but I don't think it does make sense to evaluate the formalization of P2 together with P1, because the use of humans not having moral value not having a certain trait is strange taken P1 in mind.

I will reply on your version later.

[PhilRisk]

Hey guys. Here is my attempt of formal translation of the argument.
I would love to have your feedback : @PhilRisk @DrSinger @brimstoneSalad

I think your formalization is clever, insofar it gets rid of the problematic relation between P1 and P2 in my formalization. But this is done on the downside, that it changes P2 in the formalization, that q cannot be human anymore, due to P1. If I am not mistaken, P2 now says there is not a single trait that is the human essence which would make ourself non-human (taken together with P1). I think only a trait like having a soul might be a candidate for a counterexample for it, opening the possibility for moral zombies. Every other trait would have to stay the same.
The problematic aspect is, that losing this single trait and not any other trait. For mosts traits that is simply not possible, because traits have nomological relations. E. g. if you are losing the trait having human genome, you lose the trait to synthesize specific proteins. You would be losing more than just one trait and therefore could not give a counterexample to P2.

Edit: There might be a reformulation, that t does not need to be no member of Ty in the final P2, but in case of t being a set, that any member of t is a not a member and the rest could stay the same. Maybe I will give it a try, when I have time for it.

[DrSinger]

I don't really have much to offer here but I think I can follow what's going on. I seems there's a discrepancy between formulations as to whether P2 should result in a human lacking moral value or a being that possesses all the traits of a human, minus some set of specified traits, having no moral value. I think the latter makes more sense, particularly when you consider P1.

P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.

I think it's fair to allow 'us' to be the 'q' in nightcell's formalisation

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't really have much to offer here but I think I can follow what's going on. I seems there's a discrepancy between formulations as to whether P2 should result in a human lacking moral value or a being that possesses all the traits of a human, minus some set of specified traits, having no moral value. I think the latter makes more sense, particularly when you consider P1.

I still need to look more closely at this argument (so much to do this week), but I agree with this from what I understand by skimming, and I think it is more consistent with how Ask Yourself uses the argument in debates. "Human" isn't really relevant except as a reference point to compare this new hypothetical group to (which may or may not still be considered human considering it's missing a trait) because it has known moral value.

P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.

I think it's fair to allow 'us' to be the 'q' in nightcell's formalisation

I think so.

Has everybody had a chance to read over the wiki article?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

DrSinger, PhilRisk, and Nightcell001, I'd love to hear your feedback, particularly on the Issues section:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Issues
Anything I missed? Anything not correct?

[Nightcell001]

First of all how do you write a quote by mentioning the name of the person at the top ? I apologize for my ignorance ...

Yes, but I don't think it does make sense to evaluate the formalization of P2 together with P1, because the use of humans not having moral value not having a certain trait is strange taken P1 in mind.

Fair enough, you can scratch everything I said as I though you were considering P1 as well.

But this is done on the downside, that it changes P2 in the formalization, that q cannot be human anymore, due to P1

Exactly, q can't be human anymore, otherwise the argument can't even make any sense ( as AY portray it ) in conjunction of P1.

If I am not mistaken, P2 now says there is not a single trait that is the human essence which would make ourself non-human (taken together with P1

Not quite. P2 literally says in English : There is no trait absent in animals and present in human that if absent in a replica of a human would make the replica valueless. By replica here I mean an individual which has exactly the same set of trait as a human minus the trait in question.

The problematic aspect is, that losing this single trait and not any other trait. For mosts traits that is simply not possible, because traits have nomological relations.

I agree. Losing a trait and not the other might be impossible and that's not what the argument is trying to capture. ( remember that I am just trying to translate NameTheTrait of AY, I do not agree whatsoever with the argument ).

Edit: There might be a reformulation, that t does not need to be no member of Ty in the final P2, but in case of t being a set, that any member of t is a not a member and the rest could stay the same. Maybe I will give it a try, when I have time for it.

If you have time please do, it always pleases me to work with different point of views.

I appreciate all your feedbacks !

I don't really have much to offer here but I think I can follow what's going on. I seems there's a discrepancy between formulations as to whether P2 should result in a human lacking moral value or a being that possesses all the traits of a human, minus some set of specified traits, having no moral value. I think the latter makes more sense, particularly when you consider P1.

Yes indeed, I went for this in my formulation.

I think it's fair to allow 'us' to be the 'q' in nightcell's formalisation

Yes ! Otherwise "The product of taking a human without the trait" might be too cumbersome !

Has everybody had a chance to read over the wiki article?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

I skimmed through it to be honest, like I said I appreciate the effort you put into it. I certainly hope when this will be release in the wild, AY would try to change his argument or at least work with some people willing to help.

DrSinger, PhilRisk, and Nightcell001, I'd love to hear your feedback, particularly on the Issues section:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Issues
Anything I missed? Anything not correct?

Will comment on that later, when I read it Thoroughly.

Let me know if you have difficulty with my formalization if it is at all relevant. I can still work on it. I remember stopping working on this a while ago and started working on an argument based upon a derivation of the golden rule.

[Nightcell001]

DrSinger, PhilRisk, and Nightcell001, I'd love to hear your feedback, particularly on the Issues section:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Issues
Anything I missed? Anything not correct?

Here are my notes on the issues part:

• 1.Totally agree

• 2.

  there is no premise that says moral value must be based on such a trait at all

  . I do not think you need that in the argument. If it was true that assigning no moral value to animals leads to a contradiction, you do not need a premise to say how moral value is based on certain traits. It would just follow from the contradiction that animal must have moral value.

  As such, the conclusion does not follow from the premises; the argument is a non sequitur

  . I am not quite sure how to prove that.

  First, that isn't the argument; this golden rule aspect never manifests nor is it supported by any of the premises

  . Agree, this is a big problem.

  Second, this is not how logic works. You can't support a failed premise by appealing to another unstated variation on that premise (or another version of the argument in entirety) to provide the support it needs, using some kind of circular reference.
  This premise must be supported by additional premises which outline the need for non-arbitrary traits to justify moral value

  . Yes for sure !

• 3. I agree. Might be the biggest issue I had to make the argument formal.

• 4.

  Isaac wholly rejects logic and supplants his own creation to prop up his fallacious arguments and trick people

  . I feel a little uneasy with this text. The confrontational taste of it might be a turn off for people reading the text. The point exposed are important though in my opinion.

• 5. Yes I agree

For the second part of the argument, I'm sorry but I never went to analyze it. Maybe some time in the future I will.
Also what is your plan for when the wiki is in the shape you consider good enough ? Are you going to release it publicly? make a video out of it ? Send it to AY for review/critics ?

[brimstoneSalad]

You do this:

Code: Select all

[quote=brimstoneSalad]stuff[/quote]

I do not think you need that in the argument. If it was true that assigning no moral value to animals leads to a contradiction, you do not need a premise to say how moral value is based on certain traits. It would just follow from the contradiction that animal must have moral value.

Yeah, but that's only claimed in the conclusion... nowhere else in the argument (in premises) does it suggest that would be a contradiction, and there's no mechanism proposed by which the lack of such a trait causes a contradiction.
A conclusion is not the place to add in more premises.

It isn't a logical contradiction given the premises available, the conclusion just claims it is.

Might as well skip P2 entirely, and say:
P1 - Humans are of moral value.
C - Therefore we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless

4.

Isaac wholly rejects logic and supplants his own creation to prop up his fallacious arguments and trick people

. I feel a little uneasy with this text. The confrontational taste of it might be a turn off for people reading the text. The point exposed are important though in my opinion.

I'll try to tone it down.

Isaac wholly rejects logic and supplants his own creation to justify his fallacious arguments, and intentional or not, the result is deception.

Also what is your plan for when the wiki is in the shape you consider good enough ? Are you going to release it publicly? make a video out of it ? Send it to AY for review/critics ?

Yes, this will be public.
AY broke contact and refuses private discussion on the subject, I can't really send it to him but I'll tweet it and somebody may tell him (despite him having blocked me on twitter for disagreeing with one of his comments).