From Philosophical Vegan Wiki
|
|
| (13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Main Entry [[NameTheTrait]]
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | The above formalization deals with two issues regarding the use of "us/ourselves" (See [[#Existential_Meaning|existential meaning]]).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | #If we consider the product of the human without the trait to be a human, then P2 is rendered vacuously true (see proof below). This is due to the fact that P1 implies a human can never be valueless, so that in P2 there can never be a trait that if absent in humans would cause humans to be valueless.
| |
| − | #Thus to steel-man P2, we '''must''' consider the being that remains after removing the trait to '''no longer be human'''. When Isaac uses hypothetical situations (such as what if your brain is transferred to a computer, would it be ok to kill you? etc. ), we are no longer talking about a human anymore. So we can just admit that "us" is the product of whatever is left after removing the trait.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It's worth noting that there is nothing in the argument that forbids applying completely different moral standards to the set of humans than to the set of (nonhuman) animals. And this is the essence of why NTT fails as a formal argument, and requires additional moral universalist premises in order to be logically valid.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Note : It is up to Isaac or any other supporter of the argument to demonstrate that C follows from the premises or that the negation of C leads to a contradiction. Additionally it is also preferable to have the deduction system clearly specified. Until this has been demonstrated, the argument should not be taken as valid.
| |
Latest revision as of 07:43, 27 November 2017
