Keeping track

Are you happy for any of these to go on the table of contents?

Question about an alternative correction of the argument (the "Identity of indiscernibles" route)

I was talking to Isaac, and he seemed to suggest an alternative way of thinking about the argument, that would lead to an alternative correction in order to achieve technical logical validity. Here is a mildly-regimented English language proposal for an alternative deductively valid correction:

(P1) All (sentient) humans have moral value

(P2) There is no trait (broadly construed so as to include totalities of differences) such that no (sentient) non-human animals have the trait and if x is an alteration of a (sentient) human and x lacks the trait, then x lacks moral value.

(P3) if an altered (sentient) human lacks the totality of differences between (sentient) humans and (sentient) non-human animals, then the altered (sentient) human is a (sentient) non-human animal. (This resembles, but is logically weaker, than the identity of indiscernibles)

Therefore, (C) all (sentient) non-human animals have moral value

Anyone want to translate into FOL and prove or find a counterexample? It's been awhile since I've taught logic, and I'm already spending just a bit too much time on all this...

Update: Isaac has now made a video invoking what I think is in effect the identity of indiscernibles to attempt to defend the validity of NTT [1]. Unfortunately he seems to be using 'validity' in his own sense and he doesn't seem to want to entertain the sense of 'validity' employed by those complaining about the argument's invalidity. So he's very resistant to there being a sense of 'validity' in which P3 must be added to make the argument valid. He also seems in the comment to be repeating a translation, with which I am not familiar, of something from Aristotle's metaphysics, and so far refusing either to explain what it means or accepting as relevant to his remarks explanations of how what he means by it (and clearly what he illustrates in the video) is a version of the identity of indiscernibles which is a substantive metaphysical thesis rather than a fact about the logical form of propositions employing the identity relation. But it's still the basic idea of bringing in the identity of indiscernibles to make the argument in some sense valid. As I explained on the phil vegan forum:

"Substantively all this really does (whether we take II as a suppressed premise or just go ahead and add it in there) is shift concerns about the validity of the old argument into concerns about the defensibility of premise 2. All an error theorist who (i) wants not to be harmed, and (ii) would want not to be harmed if intellectually disabled would have to do in order to respond to Isaac now is to say "yeah, if you changed out my traits in such a way that I'd be a non-human animal, then I'd have no value, even given the way in which you interpret having value. I wouldn't even be me in any relevant sense, so have at it and harm the crap out of the entity that isn't in any relevant sense m, I don't even desire that you not do so"."

Comment about tone

Margaret Hayek [Comment: some are of the view that the tone of much of this article does not befit a wiki entry; that it contains too much abrasiveness, invective, tribalism, and groundless attributions of bad intentions (especially repeated accusations of 'dishonestly', which some have sought to replace with things like 'misleading' and other possible interpretations of motives, but were restored and reiterated by others). On this view it would be good to correct this, since the article has the potential to be a great resource for many - especially who lack a philosophical background - who wish to understand what is going on with NTT and why some have complained that it is not logically valid. From this perspective it would be best not to take the perspective of someone chastising Isaac for failing to know the contents of one's introductory logic and ethics classes, but of someone who is interested in educating the general public about the relevant issues. From this perspective it would be best not to presuppose technical philosophical knowledge and terminology and to hold in contempt those who (like Isaac) do not possess such knowledge, but to explain as much as possible while presupposing as little as possible].

reply: Hi Margaret, we take a few positions here that will not be debated on the wiki: we err on the side of honesty, and we do not support or turn a blind eye to overtly pseudophilosophical or pseudoscientific arguments unless there's overwhelming evidence that they ARE harmless. You will need to take on the burden of proof here. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the forum for that. Editing wars are not the way to go about it. ;) We aren't neutral on that position. We don't pretend to be a neutral wiki, as wikipedia is. Where pseudoscience is concerned, rationalwiki is a better example of tone, although we will try to come off a bit more professional than rationalwiki on other issues (like politics).

You are right that some of the tone here is too harsh, so feel free to improve it without making huge changes. They may be reverted, but all of your changes will be considered carefully, and most kept or edited to include the spirit of your argument.

Otherwise, when it comes to additions to the article we will do our best to incorporate all of your criticism and clarifications. --BrimstoneSaladWiki

I was asked to move this to the talk page, but unfortunately it was deleted rather than copy-pasted, so I have to reconstruct it briefly: I worry that the tone of much of this entry does not befit that of a wiki article; it is abrasive, tribalistic, and such that it makes groundless accusations as to bad motives, such as repeated accusations of dishonesty. I think that's really unfortunate, since it has the potential to be a great resource for those who want to understand what is going on with NTT and why it isn't logically valid. To achieve this end I think it would really help if it took less of a tone of castigating Isaac personally for not knowing the content of introductory logic & ethics classes and technical philosophical terminology, but instead did more detached, helpful explaining to the general public the issues here without presupposition of background in philosophical logic and ethics. I realize that this may be difficult because, although I have an overall positive view of his attempts at vegan outreach, I recognize that Isaac has been defensive and has not exactly been polite to those with whom he disagrees. But I think that it would help everyone enormously if the editors are able to be the bigger individuals and rise above the mud-slinging. --Margaret Hayek

Nothing was deleted Margaret. Also, if anything is deleted you can find it in the edit history if it was a recent deletion (otherwise it can be hard to find).

You probably have a point on tone, which can be improved (this is something I've been meaning to do).

However, Isaac is clearly in the wrong: ignorance is no crime, but when combined with certitude and hostile behavior, including blocking of critics, etc. and calling arguments he does not understand wrong on faith, it ventures deep into intellectual dishonesty. His behavior has not simply been rude, it has been intellectually dishonest if that word has any practical meaning (I know you are not privy to the entirety of the exchanges).

If you still disagree after reading this and the comments above, you're welcome to discuss it on the forum. Please start a thread on the subject.--BrimstoneSaladWiki (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2017 (CET)

Note of Thanks / Explanation by Margaret:

Thank you; I am completely new to the enterprise of editing wikis in general and this wiki in particular, so e.g. prior to your telling me about where to find what I'd said in the edit history, I had no idea that I could do that. I will thus be most grateful if you can continue to be patient with me about this, and other issues pertaining to what should be posted where. Given the topics you've added at the end I'm still not 100% sure about the bounds of what I should edit in the entry, what I should post on this discussion page, and what I should post in a thread on the forum, but I will try to exercise my judgment as well as I can - and I will again be most grateful if you will be patient with me as I am unfamiliar with this enterprise. Again, I really appreciate much of what you're trying to do here and I'm doing my best to help / contribute in good faith.

Comment about apparent double-standards regarding deductively invalid arguments

(which "double standards", while unjustified, are of course permitted by mere logical form ;) )

This entry not only explains why NTT isn't deductively valid, but goes on to assert that it's a terrible argument, dangerous to veganism, etc. There is a reference early on that seems to show that this part of the entry is embarrassingly holding NTT to a double standard of dangerousness, horribleness, etc. This is that reference [1] in the first paragraph to a formulation of the argument from less able humans / "marginal cases" on the internet encyclopedia of philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SSH3ai), which is not in its currently form deductively logically valid on the most natural translation of it into FOL. Just look at the different epistemic / doxastic predicates in the premises and in the conclusion. The version formulated in the page filled in by Margaret Hayek is deductively valid on the most natural translation into FOL (she was careful to make sure that this was true in part because she knew that others here were getting very, very concerned about arguments being deductively valid). But if lack of deductive validity is supposed to be such a cardinal sin and dangerous to veganism, then why is the entry linking, in an apparently non-critical way, to an internet encyclopedia of philosophy entry that seems to contain the same dangerous errors? In reality it's of course fine that the argument at the internet encyclopedia of philosophy isn't deductively valid, as it's easy to make it so if one wants (which, like the correction of NTT, might be a helpful exercise), and it still gets its rational force across. This isn't to say that there aren't other problems with the way Isaac has used NTT that aren't problems for the argument in the IEP entry, such as his assumption that if one is willing to defend oneself or not want to be killed in a scenario, one must be taking oneself to have moral value in that scenario. It also isn't to say that the second part of NTT ("for veganism from animal moral value") doesn't have the very deep problems that this entry very helpfully points out (which problems may explain why in discussions Isaac doesn't even attempt to defend this second part of the argument). But there seems to be a very strong suggestion in some sections of the entry that the argument is terrible and dangerous just because it (and in particular it's first part "for animal moral value") isn't deductively valid, while the justified lack of fear of the argument in the internet encyclopedia entry seems to suggest that these worries are exaggerated.

Sourcing from AY's response

Video Introduction

where do I think fillo is coming from with all of this well if you look through the article I mean my personal belief is that he's not coming from a place of intellectual honesty I think it's salt from getting owned basically if you look through the article he compares me to Deepak Chopra he compares me to creationists he says they don't comprehend basic logic he suggests that I'm a narcissist so you know there's a lot of well poisoning there's a lot of bullshit and I've talked to him in private he's very obstinate it's very difficult to get basic points through to him even when you say something coherent he sort of briefly acknowledges it and then tries to go down his own road I think that to be honest he just got murked he tried to come at me in the comments section I blew him off he went on a spasm all over friend ins channel all through my comment section just triggered as fuck I went on a livestream to debunk him just because he's spreading bullshit about me he has some degree of a platform with this forum and he couldn't even keep pace with me in a conversation he couldn't answer my questions he was highly evasive after that you know he put out some content on me which again I just refuted the video was overwhelmingly upvoted and I think people just get that he's full of shit so he is coming as far as I can tell from a place of just being salty I'm not gonna say that I can read his mind so you can judge for yourself I don't know what's in the man's heart I think he's just a petty little man who doesn't like being frankly destroyed by someone who is younger and smarter I think that a lot of his personal identity is wrapped up in his unique perspective on veganism and seeing it just get shat on and wrecked by me it doesn't you know it just it just triggers him to want to respond so as far as I can tell from this article and from you know talking to him in private where again he's just extremely difficult to communicate with just lots of convoluted language has a very hard time staying on point you have to be a real anchor in the conversation or he'll just go off on unrelated philosophical tangents my take is that he's not coming from a place of intellectual honesty I think he just wants to one-up me because I fucking merked him so that's always of course a danger in a intellectual situation I mean it can also be a danger in a physical situation like in a fight you can go too hard and then gas out early because you're just so pissed and wanting to destroy the other person in an intellectual situation it can also be bad because you're going to end up saying things that come from a place of emotion and that aren't actually logical and then a person who is coming from a logical place is just going to destroy you so here we go again I will go through his article point by point and throughout this whole debunking I want to also make a kind of meta point just with my whole approach to this thing I think that philosophical vegans way of thinking his way of talking and interacting it is unnecessarily jargon Laden I think that it is unreasonably convoluted and I think that he should learn to speak in a simple way that the average person can understand it takes more brains to take complicated thoughts that you have up in your head and break them down into nice digestible bits and pieces than it does to just spew them in their full complexity so what I'm going to do is try to respond to everything as concisely and simply as possible without going off on any kind of tangents to kind of give philosophical vegan a lesson in how to actually make logical points coherently and concisely

Introduction

okay so having said that let's delve into it here we go name the trait or hashtag name the trait is a logically invalid non sequitur argument for veganism created by vegan youtuber Isaac Brown aka ask yourself in 2015 and popularized during a series of YouTube debates in 2017 by his pupil Richard Burgess aka vegan a vegan bodybuilder and youtuber okay so much stupid already so logically invalid provide evidence non sequitur provide evidence created in 2015 I'm not gonna fact-check that but that sounds reasonable enough popularized in the 2017 debates you haven't actually provided any evidence for that that's fully possible but you'd need to actually show some kind of objective data like whether it's Google Trends whether it's Twitter mentions whatever you want to use calling Richard my pupil that's obviously just some ridiculous salty shot at vegan gains is someone someone else's pupil if they take any elements of their argumentation and use it I mean that's a pretty low bar for being someone's pupil by that logic I would also be Richards pupil I must be a IU's pupil for using his general video editing style okay let's continue it was ill conceived as an attempted improvement on the argument from marginal cases created by philosopher Peter Singer removing the empirical aspects of human variation that demonstrated the titular marginal cases and is in practice combined with a hidden categorical imperative like premise yielding a deontological form of argument singer is a consequentialist a position Isaac rejects oh my lord I'm always amazed at how much stupid fillo can cram into such a small space okay so ill-conceived as an attempted improvement on the marginal case argument no I wasn't even aware of the marginal case argument when I created named the trait but they are clearly driving at the same concept so what that says to me is that the core concept is intuitively obvious to a lot of people and can be discovered relatively easily marginal cases created by singer no he's just another person who found his way to this core concept others have done it before him for example the Greek philosopher porphyry who was alive long before singer said that if we lower our standards so as to include all human beings we must therefore be willing to include animals capable of sensation fillo says that I'm removing the empirical aspects of human variation that demonstrate the marginal cases so removing that suggests that I'm working from the marginal case argument which I'm not and yes I don't go by actual marginal cases that exist in empirical reality well I do sometimes but I also generally speaking I use hypotheticals and this is logically superior because for example if you limit yourself to real-world marginal cases you're gonna be vulnerable to something like the argument from species normality because by definition you can't find a case where a marginal human is the norm now if you use hypotheticals that's ridiculously easy to get around you just create a world where the functional normal humans are the marginal cases and you ask the person is it now okay to murder those humans okay he says that my argument is combined with a hidden categorical imperative like premise provide evidence yielding a deontological form of argument okay so that depends on how you define D ontology

I'll take a minute to speak on deontology and consequentialism now

I'll take a minute to speak on deontology and consequentialism now I don't necessarily accept the deontology and consequentialism are mutually exclusive I'll use mutually exclusive as opposed to dichotomous because some people will argue that it's a trichotomy or a tetra kata me if you include virtue ethics or intuition ISM so the reason why I'd reject the notion that it is absolutely a mutual exclusion is because the mutual exclusivity depends on the breadth of your definition of deontology so if you're talking about what I would term narrow deontology like pretty basic rules simple rules rigid rules something like don't punch don't kick don't rape don't murder the non-aggression principle if you follow rules like that deontological II then sure that will be mutually exclusive to consequentialism for anyone who is too stupid to comprehend the obvious reason why this is the case I'll give an example so you have a choice of either punching someone in the face or the earth explodes so if you're going by some narrow deontological rule like the non-aggression principle or a rule that says don't punch then you would conclude that you should not punch the person and the world should explode if you are going by consequentialism then you would weigh the consequences of the two actions and you would say okay well obviously punching someone is going to just produce far less suffering than allowing the earth to explode so you should punch them so the fact that they deliver different answers proves that they are mutually exclusive now that's true of narrow deontology but deontology refers to rule-based ethical system so considered significantly broadly consequentialism would actually be a deontological position as its based on a rule that you should maximize well-being and reduce suffering albeit that rule is a lot more reasonable it's a broader more algorithmic rule but it is a rule nonetheless if your ethical system is a system then it is something other than random there is some kind of rule in place to determine what is ethical and what isn't and by a broad definition of deontology it is therefore a deontological position name the trait could only be called deontological by the same kind of broad understanding of deontology that would allow you to call consequentialism deontological he then says that singer is a consequentialist and I reject consequentialism yeah I reject just absolute consequentialism as any thinking rational person should okay if you are a pure consequentialist then you would have to accept a ton of absolutely barbaric nonsense so for example if you can save five people's lives by killing one against their will and harvesting their organs you'd have to say that that is ethical if a bunch of guys raping a girl is going to generate more well-being for them than its gonna generate suffering for her maybe they roofie her or something like this you would have to say that the ethical thing to do is to rape her so if you don't accept those kind of situations then you're not a pure consequentialist year maybe a rural consequentialist or something like this now I think that my position would be considered probably a form of rule consequentialism because I am concerned with well-being and suffering but it is not my primary concern my primary concern is logical consistency and my concern for maximizing well-being reducing suffering is secondary to and derives from this base concern for logical consistency I want people to be concerned within reason with maximizing my well-being and reducing my suffering so it's only consistent for me to have the same attitude towards others now since for me that isn't the base pillar I'm not vulnerable to the kind of retardation that I just described no I don't think it's ethical for people to rape a girl if it's gonna generate more well-being for them because I don't want to be raped if it's gonna generate more well-being for the rapist no I don't think it's ethical to steal someone's organs against their will to save five people because I don't want my organs stolen against my will to save five people so yes I'm not a raw consequentialist and anyone who is should feel compelled to explain why forcible organ theft is wrong in situations where it's going to maximize well-being and I don't want to hear appeals to cascade and consequences where you say oh if we create a society where it's legal to forcibly steal organs people are going to live in fear that does not actually tell you in principle why it's wrong to forcibly steal organs if we add parameters to the situation like nobody's ever going to know then you can't appeal to the Cascade and consequences and you're at a loss to say how this is actually wrong consequentially okay so continuing with fillos retarded article he says the formal argument is structured as such so he just includes my argument as I usually write it and then down below we've got our first section so summary informally the name the trait argument can be a useful tool in starting discussions a use where it acts very similarly to marginal cases yeah that's because they drive at the same general concept which is that humans are considered to deserve certain moral treatment yet we deny that treatment to animals and there doesn't seem to be any basis for denying it to animals that wouldn't simultaneously deny it to humans who we want to preserve it for it's a pretty basic idea he continues its greatest strength is the interactivity and thought-provoking nature of asking the discussion opponent for a specific response the titular trait however the attempt to create a formal argument from this conversation starter where deontological value systems were baked in and numerous hidden premises conspicuously left out resulted in fallacy which undermines the utility of the argument to any intelligent opponent and instead creates the appearance of dogma and dishonesty

Summary

okay so first of all you claim that its greatest strength is its interactivity and thought-provoking nature provide evidence that just seems like your personal subjective opinion to create a formal argument okay well I don't know what you mean by a formal argument you'd have to define that for me and then I can tell you if it's formal or not deontological value systems baked in I don't see any deontology if you're going to say name the trait a broad algorithmic rule is a deontological system then consequentialism would also be a deontological system by that definition hidden premises conspicuously left out provide evidence resulted in fallacy provide evidence which undermines the utility to any intelligent opponent provide evidence and creates the appearance of dogma and dishonesty provide evidence beyond your personal subjective opinion he continues the argument creates the appearance of the simple syllogism but the logic is not valid it is a non sequitur ok so I'm not familiar with syllogistic logic I can't tell you if it fits the parameters for being considered a syllogism or not the logic is not valid well it's certainly valid provide evidence it's a non sequitur provide evidence ok I think that's what he attempts to do below so he continues to explain the primary non sequitur fallacy simply C does not follow from P 1 and P 2 because nothing in the argument asserts that moral value must be based on a material trait as P 2 implies you can agree with P 1 and agree with P 2 and still reject the suggested conclusion that animals are of moral value without any contradiction okay so wrong yet again P 2 does not imply that morality has to be based on a trait it does not you can say that morality is not based on a trait for you so if you're not going to appeal to any property of the animal or the context in which it exists you're just gonna say that morality is based on nothing well then logically you would have to accept someone else doing the same thing and if you reject that that would produce contradiction if you accept it then you'd have to reject human moral value if someone uses that logic to reject human moral value which would mean abandoning P 1 you can agree with P 1 and agree with P 2 and still reject the conclusion that animals are of moral value without any contradiction no no you can't if you agree that humans are of moral value and you agree that there's no trait yet you deny animal moral value then you'd be denying animal moral value on the basis of no trait unless you accept no trait as justification for denying human moral value then you'd have a contradictory position if you do accept no trait as justification for denying human moral value then you would be rejecting P 1 beyond that primary issue even where the argument corrected by adding in Ness hidden premises and fixing other fallacies and ambiguities all outlined below it would still be a bad argument at its core there is a serious meta ethical problem in that the argument presents and requires a deontological perspective on veganism which is innately anti pragmatic and rife with internal contradiction or arbitrary resolution in actual practice okay a bunch more failure there so first of all what you're describing as the primary issue does not exist the argument is not a non sequitur if you accept p1 and you accept p2 then you reject the conclusion you're saying that it's okay to reject moral value based on no trait unless you accept rejecting human moral value based on no trait then your position is contradictory if you do then you'd be rejecting p1 suggesting the argument needs correction provide evidence hidden premises provide evidence fixing other fallacies provide evidence ambiguities well there's always some level of ambiguity and any speech you're always engaged in a trade off between clarity and conciseness I don't think my argument is unreasonably ambiguous if you do then provide evidence it would still be a bad argument provide evidence I think that's what you're about to try to do here at its core there's a serious meta ethical problem it requires a deontological perspective on veganism unless you think that broad algorithmic rules are deontological by which standard consequentialism would be a deontological position then my angle is not deontological and then I can't tell here if you're talking about deontology or my position but you're saying it's innately anti pragmatic that's true of narrow deontology it's not true of my position because my position isn't narrowly deontological and rife with internally or with internal contradiction or arbitrary resolution in actual practice again not sure if you're talking about deontology or my position if you're talking about deontology then no deontology does not need to be internally contradictory at all you could hold consistently to a rule like never punch if you're talking about my position then provide evidence and then arbitrary resolution again in the case of deontology you don't have to arbitrarily resolve deontological problems you could just hold a consistent position if you're talking about my position then provide evidence ok so he continues the argument and be corrected see correction by adding in missing premises and clarifying the meanings of certain terms but the second deontological half must also be completely replaced by an alternative argument such as an empirical weighing of cost versus benefit to create anything potentially more useful than it is harmful to the vegan cause unfortunately as seen in the correction the argument remains confusing and cumbersome due to the workarounds needed for its central premise luckily there are better and simpler arguments for animal moral value available which should be preferred okay so the argument can be corrected I still don't acknowledge that it needs correction missing premises provide evidence clarify meaning you'd have to tell me what you mean they're calling the second half deontological by what standard and how does that standard not apply to consequentialism if it's a broad algorithmic rule which it is then you'd also be calling consequentialism deontological second half has to be completely replaced provide evidence you have to use an empirical argument weighing cost versus benefit no you don't you can use proof by contradiction to create anything potentially more useful than harmful provide evidence that it's harmful to the vegan cause I see it doing tons of good and debate I see tons of people going vegan as a result of it I'm not seeing the negative okay unfortunately the correction remains cumbersome yeah that's just your style in general man you are cumbersome luckily there's better arguments well I mean better it depends what you mean by better if you mean better for persuading people that's fully possible and it's certainly possible if you're talking about specific individuals it's certainly true for specific individuals simpler arguments for animal moral value I don't know what you're referring to but that sounds totally possible which should be preferred well that depends on the context in which the arguments being deployed

Burden of Proof

okay so next we've got burden of proof this article should not be necessary because the burden of proof to demonstrate how named the trait is logically valid should fall on Isaac this is true of any argument short of support for the laws of thought themselves the basis of argumentation which are the minimum necessary assumptions okay so claiming I haven't met the burden of proof without evidence is not an argument and then explaining the burden of proof as if I don't understand that I have to prove my own points is also not in argument next as ik has consistently failed to engage with formal and symbolic examinations of his argument calling the latter equivalent to Chinese and insisting on blind faith that they have been translated incorrectly without understanding them it must be stressed that his inability to back up his argument and respond to criticism is not an excuse for failing in his obligation to do so beyond that he is also engaged in blocking critics and misrepresenting arguments presented in the plain English he asks for against name the trait responding selectively when he does by dismissing them as retards or just by repeating the same arguments that those critics have already addressed as fallacious that is he is doing the exact opposite from what one would expect if his argument were valid and he could back it up wow that is an unbelievable reading of events okay so failed to engage with formal and symbolic examinations of his argument that's because I do not know symbolic logic you can't expect me to evaluate examinations of my argument in a language that I do not know how to read that is ridiculous I have no problem with people arguing for or against my position using formal logic but if you want me to respond to it you need to talk in plain English so that I can understand what you're saying calling the latter equivalent to Chinese and insisting on blind faith that they've been translated incorrectly without understanding them unbelievable like I'm amazed that he feels comfortable saying that about another human being in public ridiculous okay I've said that it is the equivalent of Chinese to me Phil oh you fucking idiot I'm saying that when I look at this I do not know what I am looking at I'm not saying that logic itself is Chinese you fucking moron insisting on blind faith that they've been translated incorrectly never have I done that provide evidence I've said that I can't read them and my assumption based on how clear it is to me that the argument is correct is that most likely they've been translated incorrectly that is not blind faith insistence you fucking idiot okay my inability to back up my arguments is not an excuse for failing to do so I'm happy to back up my arguments just Munich ate with me in English okay blocking critics know I block retards like you Phil oh is you a widow sad you got blocked I just don't consider you to have the intellectual caliber necessary to spend my time on and you just ramble on with the same bullshit so yeah you've been blocked I block all sorts of idiots constantly to suggest that I don't respond to criticism which is obviously what you're saying here is ridiculous I'm destroying your criticism right now I've also destroyed you in a debate and in a separate video I smash people in debates all the time most of my channel is responding to criticism of veganism I've responded to plenty of criticism of my position specifically so that's just bullshit well poisoning your bitch misrepresenting arguments provide evidence responding selectively yeah we all respond selectively so I don't respond to every bacon though every plant sentience though every subjective though and I don't respond to every equally stupid and commonly repeated argument against name the trade maybe you don't respond selectively maybe you sit there all day typing up massive fucking responses to every stupid piece of shit that's said to you but not all of us are losers Phil Oh some of us have lives responding by dismissing people as retards I'll only dismiss pure retardation without an argument generally speaking I'll provide an argument and call them a retard in the process you retard just by repeating the same arguments that have been addressed as fallacious that doesn't mean that they've been proven fallacious and I don't just respond by reiterating myself without actually addressing the criticism I will address the criticism and then if it's necessary to repeat the initial argument I will do so okay and then doing the opposite of what I do if I were correct again that's just kind of subjective bullshit on your part I don't think that's what I'm doing at all and I think my channel history speaks to it continuing with your article even in merely practical terms as an outreach argument the burden of proof for answering criticism from a growing number of vegans and non-vegans and demonstrating how this argument is sound falls upon Isaac if people perceive the argument as invalid or even tricky / deceptive it fails at its goal regardless of its validity that is if the arguments purpose is to convince people to go vegan okay so looking at it as an outreach argument that's just a failure right off the bat the argument is not crafted to persuade the maximum of people to go vegan there are activists out there like James ASPI or Joey carb strong there's banana warrior princess there's people who have used some kind of variation of this argument and crafted it in a way that's going to make it a bit more functional for outreach but that is not the core goal of the argument so for you to even look at it like that is retarded like most of what you do the burden of proof or answering criticism from a growing number of vegans and non-vegans so that's a way to kind of try to paint this paint this image that you know there's this argument I've put out there and there's this you know this growing force of people who understand why it's false I mean you're just I provide some objective evidence that that's the case I don't see at all that the tides are turning against name the trade I'm sure you'd like it if that were the case but the argument will succeed on its merits and it will be around for a long-ass time Phil oh it's better than anything you've ever crafted I'm sorry if that triggers you demonstrating how the argument to sound falls upon me I have many many times and for you to suggest that I haven't without evidence is not an argument if people perceive the argument as invalid then it fails regardless of its validity assuming that the goal is to convince people to go vegan okay yeah well the goal is just to articulate logically why veganism follows from any significantly robust model of human rights the goal is not outreach so again just retarded continuing with your article unfortunately the outreach purpose seems less and less to be the case as when challenged with criticism of his off-putting and alienating behavior which may prevent people from going vegan Isaac has even stated that he doesn't care if people go vegan and that he is not an activist but an entertainer he earns an income for his videos from patreon and claims they are his intended audience this convenient deflection is reminiscent of the claims by charlatans like uri geller or john edwards to defend themselves against allegations of fraud oh my god I just can't believe the way that this guy talks I mean he just laces everything with so much well poisoning so much bullshit so much character assassination it's unbelievable okay so the outreach purpose ya know my purpose is not outreach Phil oh I'm putting out logic if activists out there want to appropriate the argument and to Fayette for outreach that's totally fine that's not my job I'm talking to a niche of people who can actually understand high-level content and if it trickles down from there in a more palatable form for the masses that is fine for me okay so challenge with criticism of my off-putting an alienating behavior I've stated that I don't care if people go vegan okay so off-putting and alienating maybe two pansy little PC kind of betta bitches like you but anyone with a proper mature mentality just understands character variation and understands that my style is my style okay so I don't care if people go vegan that's obviously total bullshit of course I care if people go vegan but that doesn't mean that my videos have to have a primary purpose of converting people to veganism okay I'm not an activist no I'm not an activist but an entertainer um I would say some kind of combination of like entertainment education I earn an income from patreon I don't understand how that's a criticism you support people who earn income from patreon doesn't fucking your forum have a patreon maybe that's just purely to prop up the forum but either way the fact that someone makes money producing content does not diminish the value of their content or their character okay claims my intended purpose is for my patrons no I mean my purpose is to produce content for anyone who appreciates my content my patrons are important to me and they influence what I make but it's not the primary purpose my primary purpose if anything is just self-expression okay and then comparing me to charlatans that's obviously not an argument that's just guilt by association through some kind of perceived behavioral similarity and of course the actual comparison itself is extremely weak you're saying that I'm similar to charlatans because I dismiss criticism of my character on grounds that I am NOT trying to persuade people fill oh that would be very similar to a UFC fighter dismissing criticism of their dancing on grounds that they are not trying to do ballet you fucking idiot okay continuing with your demented article if the intention of name the trait is providing the basis for operating a cult then as with internal theistic arguments it does not need to be sound it only needs to be confusing enough for people to convince themselves it is sound if they want to believe it in order to establish the necessary self-congratulatory in-group who sees the true and an out group of deniers in that case likewise Isaac does not need to provide arguments against it he only needs to disparage people who disagree and insult their intelligence for being able to see what is so obvious which is in practice what he does this is what seems to be happening with Isaac's fan base and eerie echo of the raw till 4 and 30 bananas a day cult of durianrider and freely that recently collapsed this is what happens when people suspend skepticism and critical thinking and let charismatic personalities past the burden of proof elsewhere and substitute arguments with insults okay so suggesting that I'm a cult leader and my audience our cult members obviously absolutely retarded no reason to think that provide evidence internal theistic arguments don't know why you're using the word internal there maybe this is some term I'm not aware of but it seems like you could just say theistic arguments doesn't need to be sound you haven't provided any evidence it's not sound it just has to be confusing enough to convince people that it makes sense okay so if anything that is what you're doing fill out you're the one who speaks in a convoluted way using all sorts of unnecessary philosophical jargon and rambling on forever I talk in a very concise and simple way that pretty much anyone with a brain can understand didn't you just say that you make high-level content for a niche of people how can you file taneous Li be speaking in a way that's easy for everyone to understand well Phil oh you deranged artists obviously there's a difference between someone's speech style my speech is very easy to follow and the character of their overall content my content appeals to people who are willing to hear the harsh truth who can stand some kind of dark humour etc thanks to Phil oh I now have a little autistic voice in the back of my head that goes off every time I speak well not every time you speak just some percentage of the time that you speak and corrects every little semantic detail of how I talk so as not to allow space for morons like him to capitalize on little quirks of speech that might give room to some kind of misinterpretation okay then self congratulatory in-group who sees the truth and an out group of deniers again that's attempting to paint us as a cult but that's really just him being salty for the fact that we're all kind of like laughing and high-fiving while he fails to comprehend basic logic I don't need to provide arguments against it I think you mean for it I just need to disparage people who disagree and insult their intelligence for being able to see what's so obvious okay so if you're suggesting I don't provide arguments that's I mean just transparent bullshit all I do on my channel is argue I've debated plenty of people I've debunked plenty of criticism of myself and I'm debunking your bullshit right now okay this is what's happening with my fan base okay so again just calling me a cult leader and my followers a cult obviously not an argument and then suggesting that my followers are suspending skepticism and critical thought not an argument and letting charismatic personalities well at least you understand that I'm charismatic past the burden of proof elsewhere provide evidence and substitute arguments with insults provide evidence I will occasionally occasionally just insult someone but the vast majority of the time it comes after a clear debunking of their position you idiot you see how I called you an idiot after explaining my position that's generally what I do you idiot okay so if you are a follower or fan of Isaac B the needle that pops the echo chamber and hold him to the same standards of proof that he demands from others ask that he addressed these arguments properly and provide evidence that his argument is valid for example if his argument is a valid syllogism ask him to hashtag name the syllogism and if it isn't ask him to rewrite it so that he can name the valid form it takes this kind of proof would not be difficult even in English okay so suggesting that I have an echo chamber that's obviously not an argument provide evidence and then saying that I don't hold myself to the same standards of proof as others again not an argument provide evidence and then ask that I address these arguments fillo people don't like your fucking arguments that's why they aren't getting any traction they like my arguments and provide evidence that his argument is valid I have plenty of times suggesting I haven't without evidence is not an argument for example if it's a valid syllogism again I'm not familiar with syllogistic logic so I don't know why you'd even go down that road you should just be able to look at the argument and if it's false you should be able to explain why it's false and then name the valid form it takes okay so suggesting that I have to put my argument into some kind of formal language for it to be a valid argument obviously that's just ridiculous if it's a false argument you should be able to explain why and you failed brutally so far this kind of proof would not be difficult even in English yeah Phil oh it would take time for me to go and learn formal logic so for you to try to move the goalposts to formal logic for demonstrating that my argument is valid pretty ridiculous

Extraordinary Claims

okay so next section extraordinary claims extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence can what a moron okay any argument needs to be supported with valid logic and empirical evidence but one making extraordinary claims even more so okay so arguments have to be logically valid yes this is very obvious for you to suggest that I don't understand this is just embarrassing frankly it's a way for you to imply that I don't comprehend the most basic things about argumentation and hold yourself up as someone who does and who's educating some kind of idiot I mean it's just embarrassing the fact that you would do this it makes you look like a fool empirical evidence no arguments don't require empirical evidence for example you could take a bunch of individual beliefs that someone holds for which there is no empirical evidence and you could demonstrate that they contradict each other okay and then extraordinary claims require even more okay well if you're making an extraordinary claim about something empirical then sure you need more empirical evidence for it valid logic no you don't need more valid logic logic is either valid or it's not okay then in defending name the trait Isak makes a number of extraordinary claims which make his arguments less plausible and increase the need for evidence extraordinary evidence that these arguments are valid beyond what would be required for more modest arguments which would be more reasonable to accept based on appearances okay extraordinary claims that increase the need for evidence I would need to know what claims you're talking about otherwise I'd just say provide evidence hopefully you specify below let's continue Isaac believes that he as somebody not educated in philosophy and who doesn't understand the meanings of philosophical terms like contradiction has at the age of 24 after recently going vegan come up with the best argument ever conceived for veganism and so has done what no other professional philosopher and thousands of years of history has been able to do from Pythagoras to Voltaire to Singer a critical part of this purported superiority is the arguments claimed meta ethical independence okay so not educated in philosophy well not formally but I can think philosophically better than you okay who doesn't understand the meaning of contradiction I mean that's just absurd I obviously understand that a contradiction is saying something and then saying its opposite at the age of 24 I'm 25 now and I mean if it was 2015 wouldn't I've been 23 recently going vegan yeah I mean recently it would have been what like two years into being vegan that seems like just a way to diminish my point of view without actually criticizing my position accurately best argument ever conceived for veganism I think it's the most solid logical argument for veganism so far yes and so it's done what no other professional philosopher in history has done yeah so this is just an attempt to make my position seem ridiculous so it's not actually an argument okay a critical part of this purported superiority is the meta ethical independence okay so let's see what he says about that below according to Isaac it doesn't matter if somebody is a realist and a realist a subjectivist a relativist his argument purports to work no matter what your assumptions as long as you believe humans or even just yourself you can substitute I have moral value in p1 have moral value and by that in practice he means that as long as you would resist somebody killing you this is not something he defined in the argument but an assumption he sneaks in during debate okay so well if I were talking I would say regardless of whether you believe morality exists objectively or subjectively so this is your wording here realist a realist subjectivist or relativist but yes unless you're going to actually reject logical consistency or human moral value then veganism will follow logically from your position okay then in practice what I mean by moral value is that you would resist or protest somebody killing you no that's not quite an accurate reading of what I'm saying so you could obviously believe that you have moral value but also believe that for some reason someone is justified in killing you and you could just try to resist becoming their victim usually if I'm mentioning this it's to demonstrate that someone who's saying they're fine with just getting killed by aliens to be logically consistent is full of shit they're not fine with just being killed and then this is not something defined in my argument but something that I sneaked in okay yeah so Phil Oh anytime that someone uses some kind of example or analogy or anything like this to illustrate their position that is them sneaking something new into their argument your reading of me is honestly so biased it is unbelievable I'm sorry that I destroyed you I'm sorry that it hurt your feelings I'm sorry that you have an ego and it took a bruising just fucking deal with it like a man stop being a cock okay so continuing if true this would be the most revolutionary philosophical argument in history of any kind not just for veganism and would send shockwaves around the world the equivalent of building a perpetual motion machine in physics interestingly the people claiming to have built them are like Isaac almost never experienced in the field again just more well poisoning character assassinating bullshit this is honestly pathetic Phil oh you should be ashamed of yourself for this article okay so most revolutionary argument what standard are you using there provide evidence ok shockwaves around the world again provide evidence a perpetual motion machine I mean this is just a comparison that you're making that doesn't appear to have any basis in reality it's just you saying that my argument is absurd without actually providing good reasoning you're trying to frame me and my logic in a particular way it's dishonest or you're just extremely biased and then I mean this is just a salty little shot here the people who claim to build perpetual motion machines like Isaac are never experienced I mean again just implying that I don't know what I'm talking about is not an argument so let's continue like that literally that whole paragraph was just salt ok as it turns out his confidence and confusion are a product of his ignorance via the dunning-kruger effect because he confuses double standard in the colloquial sense with logical contradiction in the philosophical sense among a series of other mistakes as laid out here and below yeah so again what he's trying to do he's just trying to create this image that Isaac is just such a fucking idiot he's just wrong on so many levels but at this point right here he's providing very little reasoning ok so my confidence I mean that's you're assuming where my confidence comes from my confusion you're not demonstrating that I'm confused our a product of his ignorance provide evidence dunning-kruger effect provide evidence I believe double standard is the same as logical contradiction I'd evidence a double-standard is having two different standards without a legitimate basis a logical contradiction is asserting something and its opposite a series of other mistakes provide evidence okay so to be clear within a specific and defined meta ethical foundation from deontological to consequentialist frameworks realist a realist naturalist and not such arguments are relatively common and can be compelling where the nature of moral properties and action is delineated through a number of mutual assumptions strong arguments can be made leveraging those assumptions and building on them to show either through duty or outcome with the addition of empirical data that veganism is beneficial and morally preferable to certain alternatives okay so within a specific meta ethical framework such arguments are relatively common and can be compelling no idea what you mean by such arguments are you talking about arguments that use double standard or logical contradiction are you talking about what you're gonna state down below you need to learn to write more clearly and be more concise okay where the nature of moral properties this just a huge rambling sentence you know leveraging mutual assumptions showing through duty or outcome with empirical data that veganism is beneficial um yeah I mean you can build a case for veganism with empirical data you can talk about the amount of suffering caused by different lifestyles you can use assumptions about what is good and what isn't good this sounds like you're just stating basic facts about how you can build an argument for veganism I don't see how this is even remotely relevant to why my argument is incorrect next what is extraordinary about name the trait is not a claim to be an irrefutable argument for veganism within such a context but its claim to validity despite a paucity of premises that provide the meta ethical context to give it weight and make the conclusion follow from the empirical premise and its attempt to address all actors regardless of their beliefs of morality beyond the assertions of P 1 that humans or that they specifically as self focused alternative P 1 have moral value oh man fill o is such a fucking Rambler okay so it's extraordinary not because it claims to be an irrefutable argument for veganism within such a context okay so what context are you talking about you're just being unclear again you need to learn to be specific and concise irrefutable argument for veganism no it's not an irrefutable argument for veganism I mean you could be fully consistent and be not vegan you could reject human more value and therefore reject animal moral value name the trait doesn't necessarily point towards veganism it's a consistency test it demonstrates if your position is internally consistent get that through your fucking head okay its claim to validity despite a positive premises that provide the meta ethical context I don't see why it's necessary to go into meta ethics and talk about consequentialism deontology etc proof by contradiction is going to work within any logical framework except one that is by definition illogical and rejects consistency makes the conclusion follow from the empirical premise okay so what do you mean empirical premise just why not just premise it's like internal theistic whatever you're saying up above why do you throw in extra words it's just man his writing style annoys the fuck out of me Phil oh listen to my words because I know you're gonna listen to this whole fucking thing completely through because you're a triggered little artist learn to speak simply it is fucking easy it's not confusing okay its attempt to address all actors regardless of their beliefs of morality okay yeah so I mean you're saying that something is extraordinary but you're not actually demonstrating how explain to me how proof by contradiction is invalid within a deontological framework or a consequentialist framework contradiction is demonstrable within any framework that accepts logic Oh getting annoyed with this fucking idiot

Symbolic Logic

okay so next section we have symbolic logic okay so he's got a recent attempt here he's got a bunch of logical notation I don't know how to read that no idea what that says I assume this is a translation here down below H is the set of all humans okay you already failed we're not talking about all humans a is the set of all animals again failure we're not talking about all animals T is the set of all traits absent in animals I don't know why you'd be talking about the set of all trades you could talk about a specific trait you could talk about a set of traits different traits are going to be missing from different animals these kind of things when I see shit like this that makes me think as I was saying above that this translation is probably bad okay so p1 all humans have moral value no that's not my position watch through any my videos listen to me talk about brain-dead people in my responses to blh productions okay P - there exists no trade absent in animals that if absent in humans would cause them to have no moral value well moral value isn't something that exists objectively it's something that we assigned to beings so we're talking about traits which if absent in humans would cause us not to assign ourselves moral value and then see all animals have moral value it's not my position it's just a straw man

Issues

All humans

okay so issues with the argument itself okay so all humans P one only says humans have moral value implicitly all humans not that only some humans do okay so obviously I don't believe that all humans have moral value the argument is written in a simple way that anyone can understand we're saying generally speaking humans have moral value he continues in his retardation human may range from vegetative States to a fertilized egg and for conservatives who believe those have intrinsic value there's common disagreement that violent criminals have moral values still human this in itself seems to contradict the notion of a value giving trait other than the arbitrary human status if you want value to be based on another trait your first premise can't make that impossible Isaac has permitted that other premises be substituted for P ones such as I am of moral value and maintained that the same conclusions can be reached this premise is easy enough to correct although the argument still fails even when limited to personal moral value okay so I mean first of all you're just rambling about retardation here I've talked about vegetative humans before you're just not familiar with my content okay so then saying that conservatives believe those have intrinsic value there that's a stupid thing for them to believe and they disagree that criminals have moral value still human why is this relevant why are you talking about the beliefs of conservatives you're just rambling off point as you always do learn to be concise learn to stay on point it will really benefit you okay this seems to contradict the notion of a value giving trait other than arbitrary human status human is a trait you fucking idiot if you want value to be based on another trait your first premise can't make that impossible well firstly no the first premise doesn't make it impossible for value to be based on some trait other than humanity it just has to be some trait possessed by humanity and secondly no it's not about what value would be based on it's about whether your justification for rejecting value produces contradiction as for this bottom part Isaac has permitted other premises to be substituted for p1 such as I am of moral value not sure how that's relevant this is easy to correct I don't understand how it needs correction provide evidence although the argument still fails provide evidence even when limited to personal moral value okay so just baseless assertions

P2 Inconsequential

ok so p2 inconsequential p2 says there is no trait of such description p2 there is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless well to be clear for idiots like Phil oh these premises premise one and premise two they aren't actually assertions of empirical reality they are propositions that you can either agree or disagree with humans have moral value is a proposition that someone can either accept or reject there's no trait as a proposition that someone can either accept or reject for example you could say there is a trait that trait is intelligence you could have a consistent position if you're willing to be consistent about rejecting moral value based on intelligence but if you accept that there's no trait and you also accept p1 then veganism is going to follow from those two premises continuing but even if so there is no premise that says moral value must be based on such a implicitly natural trait at all or that it cannot be an arbitrary one if one chose to name a trait moral value could just be Fiat or the tautological and irreducible non natural trait moral value itself p2 can be variously ignored or rejected in many ways more retardation we're only a third of the way through this cancerous failure Phil oh there's no premise about the basis for assigning moral value because the argument does not deal with assigning moral value it deals with rejecting moral value it looks at whether your basis for rejection is accepted consistently or not no Phil oh the trait is not implicitly natural that is just you adding random shit to my position yet again the trait could be supernatural it could be God though the question is whether someone is consistent in accepting God though as an argument no Phil oh the trait isn't somehow banned from being arbitrary it could be arbitrary the question is whether someone is consistent in accepting arbitrary though Oh Phil oh the trait could be Fiat again it's about whether someone is consistent in accepting Fiat though or the tautological and irreducible non-natural Phil Oh three adjectives is that this is not fucking grade 10 essay writing please just learn to express yourself concisely you are the cringy astruc I have ever seen yes Phil oh the trait could just be a random subjective assignment of moral value as long as someone is willing to accept random subjective assignment of moral value as basis for denying moral value to humans than they would be consistent if not then they can't deploy it without contradiction their position would be random subjective assignment of moral value doesn't doesn't justify murder Fiat though doesn't doesn't justify murder arbitrary though doesn't doesn't justify murder God though dozen doesn't justify murder this is not confusing you fucking idiot I'm just so I'm in awe that anyone can be this retarded it's unbelievable okay so he continues a perfect logicians could accept that p1 humans are of moral value and p2 that there is no such trait but still reject the implicit conclusion that animals are of moral value as such the conclusion does not follow from the premises the argument is a non sequitur chiefly because p2 fails to do what Isaac thinks it does Oh Lord philosophical retard you're so brutal okay no you can't accept p1 and p2 then reject the conclusion if you do then you would be rejecting moral value based on no trait unless you accept no trait as justification for rejecting moral value your position is inconsistent if you do then you can't defend p1 as for this stuff down below a conclusion doesn't follow from the premises you haven't demonstrated that non sequitur you haven't demonstrated that p2 doesn't do what I think it does who knows what you think I think it does okay so next we have Isaac's defense against arbitrary traits circular reference okay so he's accusing me of circular reasoning this is going to be hilarious and then defense against arbitrary traits Phil oh I know that you don't comprehend fucking anything about my reasoning so just try to listen I'll speak nice and slow for you name the trait is a logical consistency test it doesn't necessarily reject arbitrary traits if you are consistent in accepting arbitrary tho or any specific arbitrary trait as grounds for rejecting moral value then name the trait will not find a problem with that pretentiously talking to me as if I am some theist who doesn't understand basic logical concepts is embarrassing for you it makes you look like a fucking idiot okay so Isaac's first defense asserts in a manner indicating that he doesn't understand literally the first thing about logical arguments the function of premises that arbitrary can be eliminated as a possibility by paraphrasing feeding it back through the argument or trying to plug arbitrary justifications into the argument while this may follow from his tricky usage of invalid generalizations or his misunderstanding of what a logical contradiction means he thinks it means a double standard this defense appears to be a form of circular reference where he tries to 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 see circular references here for more explanation of this issue aren't Wikipedia articles supposed to be like encyclopedia entries not just biased hit pieces um you know maybe that's just my misunderstanding of the purpose of creating a wiki fillos main tactic seems to be to pretend that his opponent isn't understanding basic concepts and then harp on those basic concepts instead of actually getting into the intricacy of their argument and insofar as you do explore my argument you fail to comprehend even the most basic things about it this particular error here failing to understand how to deal with arbitrary traits is something that I have corrected to you so fucking many times and you can't wrap your head around it you're just an idiot I don't know what else to say okay so I don't understand literally the first thing about logical arguments the function of premises firstly provide evidence secondly just notice this is fillos tactic he likes to character assassinate you he likes to poison the well by suggesting that you don't understand basic concepts that you obviously understand and then often spend time harping on those basic concepts to seem like he's explaining something simple that you don't grasp it's cringy and it's transparent to any with a brain I'm sure there are some filo tards in the audience but I'm pretty sure that anyone with their head straight on their shoulders can understand what you're doing here okay that arbitrary can be eliminated as a possibility by feeding it back through the argument oh my lord Phil oh I've explained this to you so many times firstly arbitrary could be justified or it could not be justified the question is whether you are consistent in accepting arbitrary though as a justification for rejecting moral value so the purpose of the argument is to funnel various traits through it and discover that they are arbitrary for you okay so you would try saying oh intelligence and then you would realize okay wait I don't want to be discriminated against based on intelligence so intelligence seems pretty fucking arbitrary you might say okay well it's about height okay funnel height through the argument do I want to be discriminated against based on height no so height is an arbitrary trait or you could funnel the category arbitrary through the argument so the purpose here is to discover that virtually all traits are going to be arbitrary for you and those that probably aren't like sentience are traits possessed by animals he's convinced that I have to embed as a premise I mean he stated this publicly so now he's just trying to cling to it even though I've refuted it clearly multiple times he thinks that I need to embed arbitrary discrimination isn't justified as a premise in the argument Phil oh that is the conclusion of the argument you fucking idiot okay so this may follow from my tricky use of invalid generalizations provide evidence you're just poisoning the well assassinating my character baselessly or misunderstanding of what contradiction means I think it means double standard no I don't a logical contradiction is stating something and it's opposite a double standard is having two different standards that can't be justified rationally so again like I don't even know why I would provide an argument against that I should just say that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence you just claimed that I don't comprehend basic things it's not a fucking argument it's pathetic and it's transparent okay this defense appears to be a form of circular reference no Phil oh you're just too stupid to comprehend basic logic provide evidence retries to support a failed premise provide have failed by appealing to another unstated version on that premise I don't even understand what you think you're talking about there or another version of the argument in entirety okay you're gonna need to explain this because you're just making baseless assertions it's not clear what this unstated variation is all right so let's see what you say here hopefully this is an explanation if you just ramble off on some tangent I'm going to just fucking shake my head okay so it's important to note that in an earlier informal version of this argument Isaak used to premise the argument with a claim like either you believe actions must be justified or you don't allowing that his argument only applies in the former case this served as an appropriate premise given a reasonable definition of justification grounding morality in that justification and functionally forbidding arbitrary standards it was a much better argument in the past the formalized version he later presented discards this essential premise in an ill-conceived attempt to make the argument apply to subjectivist s-- and relativists as well but breaking the argument in the process for more on this see Metta ethical independence here okay so the circular reference shit still waiting on a fucking explanation for that absolutely ridiculous okay so it's important to note that in an earlier informal version of this argument okay so why are you separating everything I've said into formal and informal this is just the most autistic thing ever I'm just making arguments in a common-sense way using simple language that anybody with a brain can understand I used to premise the argument with a claim like either you believe actions must be justified or you don't I don't think I've ever used that exact wording I've said that you either believe that moral devaluation requires justification or you don't and I used to say this because it's a simple way to get people into a mode of trying to suggest arguments for murdering animals and then you can start pointing out how they're inconsistent but it's not actually necessary to do that and you're gonna fucking hate the reason why but hopefully why would I even say hopefully of course you won't be able to but hopefully you can wrap your fucking stupid brain around this if someone says oh I don't need a justification you just funnel it through the argument do you is it okay in their mind to just say I don't need any justification for murdering a human if not their position is contradictory they're simultaneously holding and not holding the position that no justification though is an argument okay allowing that his argument only applies in the former case well you can just funnel the argument through it regardless and determine if it's consistent if someone says that moral devaluation doesn't require justification well you just put that trait through the argument doesn't require justification though okay do you accept that in the human case if not contradiction if so you reject p1 and then if someone does believe that actions require justification well then what's the justification okay so this served as an appropriate premise I don't trust fillos understanding of what is appropriate or what's not because he's moron given a reasonable definition of justification well yeah again you're still operating on the assumption that this is a necessary thing to say which it actually isn't then grounding morality and that justification what see it just this language grounding morality in that justification what like what do you mean when you say something like that my argument doesn't deal with the grounding of morality it looks at whether the basis for rejecting moral value is consistently accepted or not functionally forbidding again why the extra adverb just unnecessary words arbitrary standards no I don't forbid arbitrary standards if you want to say arbitrary though you just have to be consistent about it to have a consistent position if you simultaneously accept and reject arbitrary though then your position is inconsistent it was a much better argument in the past I don't trust Phil's understanding of what's better that's just a baseless assertion the formalized version stopped using this language is extremely annoying what the fuck do you mean formalized I make arguments my arguments are just either arguments or they're not he later presented discards this essential premise okay well essential premise I don't know that it's ever been an essential premise it's just the tool to get people into a mode of suggesting justifications for murdering animals in an ill-conceived attempt okay so there you are speculating assuming you understand my motives right there I try to at least when I'm guessing at someone's motives say you know this is just my opinion I'm not sure this is what I think but you're just comfortable asserting what my motives are in an ill-conceived attempt to make the argument apply to subjectivist and relativist as well interesting how I've never had that thought process interesting how I never sat there in my head going hmm well you know maybe if I change my argument I can make it apply to so objective 'san relativists i've always held that it applies regardless of what your beliefs are and that's obviously because logical contradiction is demonstrable within any framework but breaking the argument in the process provide evidence for more on this see Metta ethical independence here I love how he has all these little sections on these supposed errors I make so he's created this whole compilation of things wrong with my reasoning and if you explore any of them individually they're just completely fucking bullshit it's unbelievable okay so the BRIC analogy defending against non sequitur criticism okay so I don't remember if I actually said this in response to an accusation that my argument was a non sequitur that's possible I mean I've used this analogy many times so the BRIC analogy is one he gives as a defense attempting to show how the need for his version of consistency is grounded in objective reality and doesn't need to be supported by a premise oh my lord okay so attempting to show how his need motto yeah my version of consistency very interesting there Phil Oh provide evidence that I have a subjective version of consistency is grounded in objective reality yes Phil Oh a consistency is a concept that exists objectively things are either consistent or they're not you either pour the same amount of liquid into two cups or you didn't you either weigh the same amount or you don't something is either consistent with something else or it is not this is not confusing this is an objective property of nature yeah I mean you're just a moron I'm infuriated at this ridiculous article and doesn't need to be supported by a premise well I mean objective properties of the universe just exist there I mean you can say that something is consistent or it isn't you don't have to embed a premise that consistency exists the fuck okay so it goes as follows okay if you're saying that a creature has moral value and that you can't distinguish that creature from can't distinguish another creature from that okay so oh my oh god okay so he's trying to make me sound like an idiot by taking verbatim speech from how I was speaking off the top of my head in a live stream and then trying to make it seem like you know that's that's just how I would make my argument in general it's like yes Phil oh people do not always speak with perfect precision when live for 2 hours straight I mean I could take someone like Sam Harris for example who I think we would all agree as well spoken and I could find footage of a live event where he talks starts a sentence then cuts himself off in the middle of the sentence and restarts because he didn't state it properly if I were to write it like that it would seem like oh what is this guy retarded when you're quoting someone you quote the correction you quote where they spoke properly you don't quote in everything they said verbatim to make it seem like they're stumbling over their words when they're making a completely coherent point pathetic attempt at character assassination by quoting me in a way that I highly doubt you would quote anybody else and let's remember you couldn't even keep pace with me my apparently retarded self in a live conversation and just to convey how this is a scuzzy little framing tactic and explain why you don't quote somebody like this I'll read it once direct from Tex then I'll speak it as it was probably spoken on the stream and you'll notice that quoting speech directly to text then rereading that text can have a strange effect that the initial speech did not so here it is direct from text if you're saying that a creature has moral value and you can't distinguish that creature from can't distinguish another creature from that creature in a way that if true of the first right so it comes across kind of strange how it was probably actually spoken is likely like this if you're saying that a creature has moral value and you can't distinguish that creature from can't distinguish another creature from that creature in a way that if true of the first right so you can see that the fact that he would quote me like this instead of adjusting for the little repetition that I had there to correct my own speech is really just him trying to make me seem stupid it's just dishonest framing it's pathetic you're a little bitch okay so let's read through this if you're saying that a creature has moral value and you can't distinguish that creature from can't distinguish another creature from that creature in a way that would if true of the first caused you to say it doesn't deserve to have moral value then you're contradicting yourself by actually suggesting that that second creature does not deserve value as well so if that's too complicated for you to understand you can just do it with physical objects okay so I can't lift brick a um there's no difference between or no trait you know present in a brick B which if true of brick a would make it possible for me to lift brick a so therefore it's contradictory to suggest that I can lift brick B well of course that's true and if there were such a trait if brick B could be lifted then whatever makes it liftable if you map those traits over to brick a then you could lift brick a - so this is just a basic formula to discover contradiction I love how he puts in the UM zand I also love how he doesn't throw a comma in there after if there were such a trait this is obviously and if there were such a trait if brick B could be lifted but he's just putting it all like one sentence if there were such a trade if brick B could be lifted pretty retarded okay so let's see what he has to say about this so one comparisons with physical reality and contradictions in physics only make sense because forces like gravity apply the same universally something you cannot just assume for morality or moral standards if forces like gravity could be regarded as subjective the whole brick lifting issue would become much more complicated by making these physical analogies Isaac is committing the argument to hidden meta ethical premises of some form of naturalistic moral realism a good position to commit to but it must be stated in the premises to make the argument valid okay so this is some really sloppy thinking only an idiot would fall for this this whole article is just fill out rambling on with philosophical nonsense going on tangents trying to assassinate my character misrepresenting my arguments if you think that this is a smart person who understands flaws in my position I would like to inform you you're an idiot you're fucking stupid please unsubscribe for my channel I don't need idiots following me okay so comparisons with physical reality don't work because gravity is universal and morality is not no fucking argument there you're just pointing at a random aspect of the analogy that doesn't map and saying therefore the analogy isn't valid that's the equivalent of if someone makes an analogy between the Sun and an orange in terms of sphericity for me to pipe up and say oh the analogies not valid because one's a fruit and one's a ball of gas okay you fucking idiot that does not address the point of comparison it's not talking about the matter composing the objects the analogy is designed to address their shape this analogy is designed to address the concept of proof by contradiction how does the fact that gravity applies universally and morality does not damage the concept of proof by contradiction please explain that to me you fucking idiot it's like when he doesn't know what to say he just rambles off on some random little little NIT pick that he thinks makes sense and doesn't actually explain how it's relevant it's pathetic this guy is a fucking idiot okay so if forces like gravity could be regarded as subjective the issue would become much more complicated no you fucking absolute moron it wouldn't then the trait would be gravity subjectively applies to this object this is not confusing okay making physical analogies commits me to a hidden meta ethical premise of naturalistic moral realism want to provide some reasoning there I'm not even gonna address that because you haven't actually demonstrated how that's the case okay so continuing to also it's trivial to name the trait in the BRIC - if you don't require it to be a natural mind independent one for example I'm unable to lift the brick because I don't want to I'm unable to lift things I don't want to lift because I lack the motivation and motivation is necessary for lifting things the trait is that I want or don't want to lift it oh my lord fill those thoughts are so cumbersome to go through it just drains my mental energy okay so does the trait need to be natural no it could be super natural it could be God though it would depend if you're consistent in your use of the trait or not if God's though is a justification for not lifting the one brick than God though you would need to be accepted as justification for not lifting the other brick mind-independent know it can be mind dependent I can be it can be I'm scared of that brick if you're scared of the other brick would you also be unable to lift that brick it's not confusing Phil oh you're fucking idiot so then down here you basically say the trait is that I have the motivation to lift the brick okay and if you map that onto the other brick would you then be able to lift it yes you would fucking absolute idiot Jesus Christ okay in essence arbitrary whim is just as adequate and explanation to differentiate brick a and B as any unless as explained above you make certain metal commitments against arbitrary answers and establish some form of moral realism and reject any subjective factors aka actual moral objectivism not Isaac's false dichotomy version again these are good premises to establish and that can create strong arguments but Isaac has consistently rejected the need for them while presenting analogies to justify that lack in name the trait that also fail without such premises fucking moron okay so arbitrary whim yeah as long as you are consistent in accepting arbitrary whim that would be fine just like with animals if arbitrary whim justifies rejecting moral value as long as you're consistent about it it's a consistent position if arbitrary whim is justification for not lifting one brick then if arbitrary whim were applied to the other brick that would be justification for not lifting it as well this is not confusing you're a fucking moron okay then unless you make certain meta ethical commitments so this is him saying that you need to argue in the same way as Phil oh if you want to make arguments for veganism oh you need to embed some kind of meta ethical commitment that arbitrary answers aren't valid again no you don't you can use an arbitrary answer as long as you're consistent about it the whole point of the argument is to test for consistency the point of the brick analogy is also just to explain the concept of testing for consistency if something's not consistent if it's contradictory then you can use that proof by contradiction to establish that the position is not consistent this is such basic shit it's unbelievable that you don't get this okay reject subjective factors no yeah again you can accept subjective factors that's about whether you're consistent with them or not okay then actual moral objectivism not Isaac's false dichotomy version fucking whatever the hell you mean there oh yeah he thinks that I mean this goes into his weird little email exchange with me he thinks that the version of objective morality that I use which is referring to the notion that morality exists objectively is somehow not a valid definition and the only definition he accepts is the epistemological version which refers to the notion that moral properties can be discovered in the same kind of way as mathematics which is a position that I hold but no I use moral objectivism in the ontological sense it's not a false dichotomy oh I'm gonna break my mind responding to this idiocy okay and then these are good premises that he's just rambling on again the premises that I like are good premises and then I've consistently rejected the need for them for what premises for arbitrary answers yeah you don't need that as a premise rejecting subjective factors you don't need that as a premise Phil oh you can be consistent while using arbitrary though you can be consistent while using subjective though the point is that most people won't be and most people will determine that things are not valid justifications for rejecting moral value okay um all right

Existential Meaning

so next existential meaning existential why why existential okay so human and us ourselves in this argument has no clear meaning Jesus Christ okay ptoo there is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless semantics nitpicking Jesus Christ okay so any example of a trait applied to you like having your consciousness transferred into a biologically non-human body might just cause us to change our understanding of what human means anything with a human consciousness to maintain consistency so that nothing could cause you to stop being human even once human always human even the trait having been human at some point thus making human an unfulfilled answer for moral value or the change may cause us to reject the application of we to the new entity's example reduced to the intelligence and capacity of a cow we may consider what makes us ourselves to be gone and this is the equivalent to death anyway such that the opponent need take no issue with the loss of moral value making ptoo false Isaac is concerned with the hard problem of consciousness so he probably isn't prepared to tackle this issue the easiest way to fix the problem is to avoid references to us by defining clearly the behavioral implications of lacking moral value or just scratch this confusing word and substitute indirectly the golden rule unfortunately this runs into the next problem which Isaac is unwilling to address oh my lord I mean it's just just convoluted nonsense pulling teasing these paragraphs apart and trying to find the kernels of what the fuck he means as just as such a cumbersome process okay so let's go through that any example of a trait applied to you might just cause us to change our understanding of what human means anything with human consciousness so much stupid okay so total philosophy Newberry here so if you're gonna say that it's about human consciousness then you'd of course be taking a ton of shit off the table it can't be about DNA biology morphology species that's all gone now we're just talking about the level of consciousness of the creature in question the next thing to point out is that there are humans who are below the level of consciousness of the animals that we currently eat so to be consistent you'd have to either support killing those humans or reject those animals then you fail at naming the trait demonstrating your lack of capacity for abstract thought by saying once human always human or having been human at some point so just use your brain fill oh try to think of it here you create a creature higher intelligence than a human greater capacity for well-being greater capacity for suffering everything that we think makes us meaningful is manifest to a greater degree in this being are you okay killing that being if so first of all I think you're lying but at least your position would be consistent and I think you're lying because there's no fucking way you'd want to die if you were that creature and then if not it's not about having been human is it okay and then you've got you could reject the application of we two entities below a certain level of cognition no I don't accept that those entities would still be a continuation of your being you can either support killing them or reject killing them if you support killing them you support killing humans or animals at that level that position would at least be consistent if you reject killing them then you'd have to reject killing all beings at that level or else you'd be inconsistent okay then you say I'm concerned with the hard problem don't see how that's remotely relevant just rambling off in random philosophical deaf directions as per usual I'm not prepared to tackle this issue I just fucking tackled it to the ground and choked you out so suck my dick the easiest way to fix the problem I don't acknowledge a problem exists is by avoiding references to us that's not necessary you've provided no reasoning for why I shouldn't use the term us we're clearly talking about us by defining the behavioral implications of lacking moral value what a fucking moron Phil oh you know how Rock doesn't have moral value and you can do whatever the fuck you want to that rock yet that is what it means to not have moral value that's the behavioral implications are that it doesn't matter how you treat that being and if you're gonna like I don't put this beyond Phil oh he is this semantic and pedantic and retarded if you're gonna say oh well you can't do anything to Iraq you can't smash a human in the head with a rock can you no shit Phil oh that's not because the rock has moral value it's because you're attacking a being with moral value okay and then scratch the confusing wording I don't acknowledge that it's confusing the only confusing person here is you substitute in the Golden Rule don't understand how you mean that or why that would be necessary and then unfortunately this runs into the next problem which I'm sure isn't a problem which I'm unwilling to address except I'm about to address it okay

Meaning of "moral value"

so let's continue the meaning of moral value moral value has no clear meaning or material implications this is easy to fix as noted above it just needs to be grounded in some meta ethical premise oh my god Phil oh you're just picking semantics fucking hairs this is irrelevant moral value so you know how financial value is having some kind of worth in money you know how sentimental value is having some kind of worth in sentimentality moral value is having worth in a moral sense you know how you think it's wrong to smash a baby but you think it's fine to smash a rock that's because one has moral value and the other doesn't this is not confusing get your fucking head around basic concepts unfortunately Isaac is unwilling to do this and has even removed grounding from previous informal versions of his argument seemingly because he believes it is the subjectivity of this provision that makes the argument work force Objectivists he thinks it's up to whatever you think gives moral value and you just have to be logically consistent with that and if he actually abided by that his argument would have no normative persuasive power at all in practice it's this ambiguity in the argument he uses to manipulate his opponents supplanting his own unique definition of consistency / contradiction to relate to double standards in imposing your will upon others in ways you wouldn't want to be imposed on instead of being honest enough to just put that in the argument as a premise as recommended above he changes the rules of logic itself and the very definition of logical contradiction to suit his agenda okay guys my patience is wearing thin here okay so no I don't have to ground moral value then the argument only applies to people who share that kind of grounding why the fuck would I do that if they believed moral value applies to a certain creature that's all you need for the argument you have to look at if the basis for rejecting it produces contradiction or not okay I removed grounding from previous informal versions of my arc provide evidence I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about you're just rambling with with no fucking reference to what you're speaking about as per usual seemingly because I believe it's the subjectivity of this provision that makes the argument work for subjectivist no the reason it works for all positions fillo is because contradiction exists for all positions take something that you're a subjectivist with respect to okay how about your preference for colors or flavors my favorite flavor is an isn't Vanille my favorite color is and isn't green those positions are objectively contradictory oh my lord okay so I think it's up to so I think it's up to the individual what gives moral value this is terrible wording here by the way he thinks it's up to whatever you think gives moral value terrible sentence but yes no it's up to the individual to determine what has moral value I'm sorry if you want to be some kind of hardcore Objectivist and try to say that it's not up to the individual but reality disagrees you fucking moron okay you know what a serial killer is that is someone who does not assign moral value to humans it is up to the individual oh but a serial killer might still assign value to some humans but he's okay killing other humans ask yourself is clearly inconsistent Phil oh shut the fuck up um okay and I think you have to be logically consistent no I don't I you can choose not to be consistent I'm just going to point it out if you're inconsistent and it's probably a fuckin shitty basis to build morality on and you sure as hell don't want others disenfranchising you morally based on logical inconsistency so these are ways to get people on your page I don't think you have to do anything because I'm not some kind of moral Objectivist um okay and if I actually abided by that my argument would have no normative persuasive power at all it has persuasive power to people who care about their position being contradictory in practice it's this ambiguity and the argument that I use to manipulate my opponents provide evidence of ambiguity and of manipulation supplanting my own unique definition of consistency contradiction provide evidence to relate to double standards in imposing your will upon others in ways you wouldn't want to be in post one okay I'm gonna explain this once very fuckin clearly yet again for this absolute retard okay Phil oh you understand how you think it's fine well you don't but a flesh-eater thinks it's fine to murder an animal but it's wrong to murder a human okay so what's implicit in what they're saying is that there is some difference between the two that justifies it in one case and not the other whatever that difference is you need to be able to spell it out and if you spell it out and apply it to the first case it should justify killing that creature the contradiction is that saying that those traits that make up difference both justify listen carefully justify and don't justify murder this is not fucking confusing intelligence dozen doesn't justify murder that is a contradiction species dozen doesn't justify murder that is a contradiction if you can't wrap your stupid fucking brain around this I don't know what to say to you okay and then if we got anything else here instead of being honest provide evidence of dishonesty it's just you assuming motive and just put that in the argument as a premise put what in the premise very still talking about the grounding you're writing is so unclear I don't even know what you're referring to he changes the rules of logic provide evidence and the very definition of a logical contradiction provide evidence then he says obviously in philosophy a logical contradiction is not the same thing as a double standard see logical contradiction meaning for more info on this okay so fellows a fucking idiot he's just making up random bullshit obviously I know that there are two different concepts

Where he got up to

Working from a 27 October version Isaac got as far as "meaning of 'moral value'"

1 Burden of Proof

1.1 Extraordinary Claims

2 Symbolic Logic

3 Issues

3.1 With the argument itself

3.1.1 All Humans

3.1.2 P2 Inconsequential

3.1.3 Existential Meaning

3.1.4 Meaning of "moral value"

Introduction

Note: This article is a work in progress

So called #NameTheTrait was(is?) a logically invalid (non sequitur) argument with implicitly logically contradictory (inherently false) premises for veganism created by vegan Youtuber Isaac Brown a.k.a. "Ask Yourself", and popularized by his pupil Richard Burgess a.k.a. "Vegan Gains" a vegan bodybuilder and Youtuber.

The formal argument was structured as such:

Argument for animal moral value:
P1 - Humans are of moral value
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless
Argument for veganism from animal moral value:
P1 - Animals are of moral value.
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to consider anything short of non-exploitation to be an adequate expression of respect for human moral value.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by considering anything short of non-exploitation(veganism) to be an adequate expression of respect for animal moral value.

To explain the primary non sequitur fallacy simply: C does not follow from P1 and P2 because nothing in the argument asserts that moral value must be based on a material trait as P2 implies. You can agree with P1 and P2 and still reject the suggested conclusion (that animals are of moral value) without any contradiction.

There are numerous other fallacies, contradictions, ambiguities, and instances of intellectually dishonest word usage in the argument which this article will outline (there are more problems with the argument than there are statements in it). This article will explain in detail how the argument fails, and why it should not be used.

The argument CAN be corrected (see correction) by adding in missing premises and clarifying the meanings of certain terms, as well as replacing the second half, but it remains confusing and cumbersome, and there are better and simpler arguments for animal moral value available which should be preferred.

Burden of Proof

As an outreach argument, the burden of proof for answering criticism from a growing number of vegans and non-vegans and demonstrating how this argument is sound falls upon Isaac. If people perceive the argument as invalid, it fails at its goal regardless of its validity: that is if the argument's purpose is to convince people to go vegan rather than providing the basis for operating a cult (in which case, as with internal theistic arguments, it does not need to be sound, it only needs to be confusing enough for people to convince themselves it is sound if they want to believe it in order to establish a self-congratulatory in-group who sees "the truth", and an out-group of deniers, which is what seems to be happening with Isaac's fan-base).

Isaac has consistently failed to engage with formal and symbolic examinations of his argument, calling them equivalent to "Chinese" and insisting on blind faith that they have been translated incorrectly without understanding them. It must be stressed that his inability to back up his argument and respond to criticism is not an excuse for failing in his obligation to do so. Beyond that, he has also engaged in blocking critics and misrepresenting arguments presented in "plain English" he asks for against #NameTheTrait, responding selectively when he does by dismissing them as "retards" or with the same responses on loop that those same critics have already addressed as fallacious.

Extraordinary Claims

In defending #NameTheTrait Isaac makes a number of extraordinary claims which make his arguments less plausible and increase the need for evidence (extraordinary evidence) that these arguments are valid beyond what would be required for more modest arguments.

Isaac believes that he, as somebody not educated in philosophy (and who doesn't understand the meanings of philosophical terms), has at the age of 24 after recently going vegan come up with the best argument ever conceived for veganism, and so has done what no other professional philosopher in thousands of years of history has been able to do (from Pythagoras to Voltaire to Singer). A critical part of this purported superiority is the argument's claimed meta-ethical independence.

According to Isaac, it doesn't matter if somebody is a realist, an irrealist, a subjectivist, a relativist: his argument purports to work no matter your assumptions as long as you believe humans (or even just yourself; you can substitute "I have moral value" in P1) have moral value, and by that in practice he means that as long as you would protest or resist somebody killing you (this is not something he defined in the argument, but an assumption he sneaks in during debate).

If true, this would be the the most revolutionary philosophical argument in history of any kind, not just for veganism, and would send shockwaves around the world. The equivalent of building a perpetual motion machine in physics.

As it turns out, his confidence and confusion are a product of his ignorance (via the Dunning Kruger effect) because he confuses "double standard" in the colloquial sense with "logical contradition" in the philosophical sense, among a series of other mistakes as laid out here (below).

To be clear, within a specific and defined meta-ethical foundation from deontological to consequentialist frameworks, realist, irrealist, naturalist and not, such arguments are relatively common and can be compelling. Where the nature of moral properties and action is delineated through a number of mutual assumptions, strong arguments can be made leveraging those assumptions and building on them to show either through duty or outcome with the addition of empirical data that veganism is beneficial and morally preferable to certain alternatives.

What is extraordinary about #NameTheTrait is not a claim to be an irrefutable argument for veganism within such a context, but its claim to validity despite a paucity of premises that provide the meta-ethical context to give it weight and make the conclusion follow from the empirical premise, and its attempt to address all actors regardless of their beliefs of morality beyond the assertions of P1 (that humans, or that they specifically, have moral value).

Symbolic Logic

Recent attempt:

P1: ∀x∈H: M(x)
P2: ∄t∈T: (∀x∈H: (-F(x,t) -> -M(x)))
C: ∀y∈A: M(y)

H is the set of all humans
A is the set of all animals
T is the set of all traits absent in animals

M(x): x has moral value
F(x,t): x has trait t

P1: All humans have moral value
P2: There exists no trait absent in animals, that if absent in humans would cause them to have no moral value.
C: All animals have moral value

Issues With the argument itself

All Humans

1. P1 only says humans have moral value (implicitly all humans), not that only some humans do. Human may range from vegetative states to a fertilized egg. This in itself seems to contradict the notion of a value giving trait other than the arbitrary "human" status.
If you want value to be based on another trait, your first premise can't make that impossible.
Isaac has permitted that other premises be substituted in for P1 (such as "I am of moral value") and maintained that the same conclusions can be reached. This premise is easy enough to correct, although the argument still fails even when limited to personal moral value.

P2 Inconsequential

2. P2 says there is no trait of such description, but even if so, there is no premise that says moral value must be based on such a trait at all or that it can not be an arbitrary one. Moral value could just be fiat, or the tautological and irreducible non-natural trait "moral value" itself.
As such, the conclusion does not follow from the premises; the argument is a non sequitur.
Isaac asserts, in a manner indicating that he doesn't understand literally the first thing about logical arguments (the function of premises), that "arbitrary" can be eliminated as a possibility by "feeding it back through the argument". His claim is that arbitrary creates a contradiction because, paraphrasing "You wouldn't accept arbitrary reasons to kill you, so you can't use arbitrary".
First, that isn't the argument; this golden rule aspect never manifests nor is it supported by any of the premises.
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.

Existential Meaning

3. "Human" and "we" in this argument has no clear meaning, and any example of a trait applied to you (like having your consciousness transferred into a biologically non-human body) might just cause us to change our understanding of what human means (anything with a human consciousness) to maintain consistency so that nothing could cause you to stop being human, even "once human always human", thus making "human" an unfalsifiable answer for moral value, or the change may cause us to reject the application of "we" to the new entities (e.g. reduced to the intelligence and capacity of a cow, we may consider what makes us ourselves to be gone and this to be equivalent to death anyway), such that the opponent need take no issue with the loss of moral value.
Isaac is concerned with the "hard problem" of consciousness, so he probably isn't prepared to tackle this issue. The easiest way to fix this problem is to avoid is by defining clearly the behavioral implications of "lacking moral value", or just scratch this confusing wording and substitute in directly the golden rule. Unfortunately, this runs into the next problem which Isaac is unwilling to address:

Meaning of "moral value"

4. "Moral value" has no clear meaning or material implications. This is easy to fix, as noted above: it just needs to be grounded in some meta-ethical premise.
Unfortunately, Isaac seems to believe it is the subjectivity of this provision that makes the argument work for subjectivists. He thinks it's up to whatever "you" think gives moral value, and you just have to be "logically consistent" with that.
In practice, it's this ambiguity in the argument he uses to manipulate his opponents, supplanting his own unique definition of consistency/contradiction to relate to double standards in imposing your will upon others in ways you wouldn't want to be imposed on. Instead of being honest enough to just put that in the argument as a premise (as recommended above) he changes the rules of logic itself and the very definition of "contradiction" to suit his agenda.
Obviously, in philosophy a "logical contradiction" is not the same thing as a double standard.
Isaac does not understand the definition of a logical contradiction, or chooses to ignore the definition substituting in his folk definition instead. Isaac believes, or claims to believe, that folk definitions of technical vernacular are perfectly fine to use in a philosophical context even if they completely rewrite the rules of logic and argumentation in the process; if that's the case with this substitution, this is not only malpractice, it's transparent intellectual dishonesty; a pseudo-philosophy of the worst kind, a conscious twisting of definitions as incredible as the pseudo-scientific machinations of Deepak Chopra.
Once you have so flippantly thrown out the fundamental rules and definitions in philosophy and substituted in your own custom "logic" for the real thing, there's just no arguing the case. Isaac wholly rejects logic and supplants his own creation to prop up his fallacious arguments and trick people.

Talk:Defunct NameTheTrait V1

Contents

Keeping track

Question about an alternative correction of the argument (the "Identity of indiscernibles" route)

Comment about tone

Comment about apparent double-standards regarding deductively invalid arguments

Sourcing from AY's response

Video Introduction

Introduction

I'll take a minute to speak on deontology and consequentialism now

Summary

Burden of Proof

Extraordinary Claims

Symbolic Logic

Issues

All humans

P2 Inconsequential

Existential Meaning

Meaning of "moral value"

Where he got up to

Introduction

Burden of Proof

Extraordinary Claims

Symbolic Logic

Issues With the argument itself

All Humans

P2 Inconsequential

Existential Meaning

Meaning of "moral value"

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools