Philosophical Vegan Forum

Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:21 pm

∄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 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:57 am

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 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:21 am Hey guys. Here is my attempt of formal translation of the argument.
I would love to have your feedback : @PhilRisk @DrSinger @brimstoneSalad

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

DrSinger wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:56 am 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.

DrSinger wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:56 am

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

• 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

[quote=brimstoneSalad]stuff[/quote]

Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:53 am 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.

Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:53 am 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.

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

Nightcell001 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:53 am 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 ?