Great comments on new #namethetrait video

[DrSinger]

There's a few comments here also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWi-_b4A7oM&lc=UgzOiEYKRNoV8I_Zd9B4AaABAg

I think his fanbase will be quite disappointed to here him claim it's logically possible to name a trait, meaning animal rights do not follow logically from human rights, and that NTT is not an indefeasible argument for veganism

Also for any AY viewers over here, he has actually claimed you cannot name a trait. And that veganism follows logically from 'human rights' and 'logical consistency'

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/File:AY_Extraordinary_Claims.mp4

[Gavel]

I'd say he shot himself in the foot, but it's more like he stepped on his own IED and suffered extensively from the subsequent detonation.

[DrSinger]

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait#Additional_Problems_with_Quantification

Re: Margaret

I think it's important to include something about the issue of quantification, since it is a problem with the validity of the argument, and has been overlooked imo. I think people should be aware of the importance of quantification generally (most people are not, see: many of the comments on Pavlov's Dog's video)

I dont think it's possible to avoid the nit-picking tag. I doubt anyone would be interested or compelled by the rest of the article but not interested in the quantification issue. Or think that the counterexamples are not nit-picking, but the quantification issue is.

[Daz]

There's a few comments here also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWi-_b4A7oM&lc=UgzOiEYKRNoV8I_Zd9B4AaABAg

I think his fanbase will be quite disappointed to here him claim it's logically possible to name a trait, meaning animal rights do not follow logically from human rights, and that NTT is not an indefeasible argument for veganism

Also for any AY viewers over here, he has actually claimed you cannot name a trait. And that veganism follows logically from 'human rights' and 'logical consistency'

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/File:AY_Extraordinary_Claims.mp4

As I understand the argument, AY has never claimed that it is logically impossible to name a trait, neither has he claimed that animal rights always follow from human rights (unless those rights are universal and without exception, then possibly so), however the traits that can be claimed lead to some pretty absurd positions in the ethical and moral sphere if one is being logically consistent. Positions that most people in civilised society would not find acceptable. For example, one could logically say that being able to speak a language is the trait. In order to be logically consistent, they would then have to hold that if a human can't speak a language then it is morally and ethically ok to exploit and kill them the same way as they would other animals. If they accept this and truly believe it, then they are being logically consistent AND they have named a trait. AY has always acknowledged something like this as being a logically possible conclusion from the name the trait argument. However most sane and civilised people would not accept a world that allows someone to kill or exploit humans born with the lack of ability to speak a language, and so exposing the irrationality of the trait mentioned.
So, traits can be named, and people can remain logically consistent with these traits from animals to humans, however they will produce worlds and scenarios that most would find unacceptable. Make sense?

[Red]

New Ask Yourself video "responding" to the page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i64UmDMlNBk

I think it would have been nicer and more honest if AY asked brim to explain his position more in depth rather than just assume he is lying or incompetent.

[DrSinger]

He has implicitly claimed it by the statement 'animal rights are the logical extension of human rights' and if I remember correctly he has claimed that naming a trait causes you to forgo your claim to believe in human moral value, which is the case if you take your language example and say that you can kill baby humans too.

The problem is when someone poses a moral system like the following

(i) humans are of moral value
(ii) nonhumans are not of moral value

In this situation AY would claim you have named the trait 'species' and would have to accept being killed by aliens. But this is not the case. In such a moral system it would be wrong for aliens to kill humans because humans have moral value

[Daz]

The problem is when someone poses a moral system like the following

(i) humans are of moral value
(ii) nonhumans are not of moral value

In this situation AY would claim you have named the trait 'species' and would have to accept being killed by aliens. But this is not the case. In such a moral system it would be wrong for aliens to kill humans because humans have moral value

Yes, and this is basically the moral system implicit for most people when they exploit and kill animals, or pay others to do it. The point is, from here is where NTT is employed. From that very platform. In other words, name the trait that distinguishes humans from non humans that justifies granting moral value to the former and not the latter. They may say species, they may not. They may say another trait altogether or list a few. Or, they may refuse to name any trait and say that this is simply their belief. However, that is not a valid argument, and they will have not at all justified their position if they refuse to justify the distinction between humans and non humans. If it is simply an unjustified arbitrary distinction, then again it will produce inconsistencies within their own moral system if explored. For example I could say something arbitrary like (i) humans with hair are of moral value (ii) humans going bald or who are bald are not of moral value. Using their logic, they would have to accept this if I just said this is my belief and I don't need to justify it. Noone would accept that so why should anyone accept the former. Hence, name the trait.
As I understand it, NTT aims to explore precicely such a moral system as you have listed, and in so doing exposes it's inconsistency and illogicality to a rational thinking person.

[DrSinger]

someone can simply just hold these two axioms

(i) humans are of moral value
(ii) nonhumans are not of moral value

They are not logically contradictory statements, so there is no logical inconsistency to be exposed. The following is a logically valid argument

(i) if humans are of moral value then it is wrong to kill humans
(ii) humans are of moral value
(iii) nonhumans are not of moral value
(iv) it is wrong to kill humans (even for aliens)

You may consider it unreasonable (or illogical, in the colloquial sense) but logically it is valid

[Daz]

someone can simply just hold these two axioms

(i) humans are of moral value
(ii) nonhumans are not of moral value

They are not logically contradictory statements, so there is no logical inconsistency to be exposed. The following is a logically valid argument

(i) if humans have moral value then it is wrong to kill humans
(ii) humans are of moral value
(iii) nonhumans are not of moral value
(iv) it is wrong to kill humans (even for aliens)

You may consider it unreasonable (or illogical, in the colloquial sense) but logically it is valid

All due respect, I think you are missing the point... AY has never claimed one can't remain logically consistent and valid while taking some pretty extreme (and unacceptable to most) positions ..

I mean equally, someone can simply just hold these two axioms

(i) humans with hair are of moral value
(ii) humans who are going bald or who are bald are not of moral value

Similarly, they are not logically contradictory statements, so there is no logical inconsistency to be exposed.
so...

(i) if humans with hair have moral value then it is wrong to kill humans with hair
(ii) humans with hair are of moral value
(iii) humans who are bald or who are going bald are not of moral value
(iv) it is wrong to kill humans with hair (even for aliens)

You could plug in any arbitrary distinction here. Could be eye colour ie.(i) humans with blue eyes are of moral value (ii) humans without blue eyes are not of more value. Could be skin colour. Could be race. etc. Could be anything. Clearly noone in civilised society would accept such arbitrary distinctions of moral value, exposing how it is equally unacceptable to simply use an arbitrary distinction such as humans/non humans without defining why they are distinct. Point is, if an arbitrary distinction is the trait, then when explored through the NTT argument, the invalidity of such a position will be exposed.

[DrSinger]

Point is, if an arbitrary distinction is the trait, then when explored through the NTT argument, the invalidity of such a position will be exposed.

If you agree that such arguments are logically valid (i.e. if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true), how can the invalidity of such a position be exposed?

Of course people wont agree with them, but that is because they reject the premises, not because the arguments are logically invalid.