Is not a great ape and does not posses an intelligence or consciousness comparable to humans — khaled

Ok, so only in being a member of the great apes, and to have an intelligence or consciousness within the range of average humans (comparable is subjective, thus too arbitrary) does a being have sufficient moral value necessary to not be killed for food.

Btw, a large minority of humans are within the range of intelligence or consciousness comparable to that of agricultural animals. I’m not sure if framing it that way wouldn’t be another category error, but we’ll go with it anyway.

Well, an easy one to start would be a god-like being, or an alien species with much higher intelligence, and probably the vast majority of sentient life throughout the universe, supposing there are some. Either way, I could cook up so many hypotheticals that I don’t know where to start.

OK, how about a population of super intelligent humanoids which never evolved the sensory organs for vision, audition, gustation, or olfaction, but nonetheless have a highly sensitive somatosensory system, especially nociceptors in which we can and (hypothetically) have measured via neuropathic technology their entire central nervous system and it couldn’t be more clear that they experience a thousand times greater pain than the average human.

Now, without such sensory organs they necessarily will not have similar consciousness and they are by definition non-great apes, and have comparable intelligence to us as we have comparable intelligence to an ant. Oh and by the way they came here to help us in saving our planet, end hunger, end disease, end poverty, etc… So, you would say it’s fine to kill them for food right?

We don't kill each other because humans are like each other. — TheMadFool

You realize that species normality is a trait, right?

We should not kill any living organism (plant, animal or otherwise). — TheMadFool

Ok, so we should stop breathing, eating, drinking water, brushing our teeth, occupying space, and in other words, just stop living? You must be an antinatalist. Bacteria, viruses (kinda), insects, parasites, plants… we kill them in the trillions of trillions.

So, on your view, there should be no morality at all because there was none once upon a time in our evolutionary past? That is what is entailed by that logic.

But it is acceptable relative to our contemporary cultural and societal normalities? If so, that is all that matters when it come to reductio ad absurdum like this. It’s how you are perceived by the audience, not the other interlocutor, or future acknowledgments.

You realize that species normality is a trait, right? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I see, so that's how you want to wiggle out of my trap. :grin:

Here's a variation of the Name The Trait Argument: Name the species-specific trait that makes one human killing another human being impermissible? You can't say being human because we've already seen from the original Name The Trait argument that there's nothing special about being human that serves as a reason to not kill them. In other words, the reason for not killing a human has nothing to do with the species h. sapiens. I'm not sure but it appears that you're begging the question.

Ok, so we should stop breathing, eating, drinking water, brushing our teeth, occupying space, and in other words, just stop living? You must be an antinatalist. Bacteria, viruses (kinda), insects, parasites, plants… we kill them in the trillions of trillions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Certum est, quia impossibile (It is certain, because it is impossible).

Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd). — Tertullian

God is great! He asks us to do the absurd and the impossible!

Btw, a large minority of humans are within the range of intelligence or consciousness comparable to that of agricultural animals. I’m not sure if framing it that way wouldn’t be another category error, but we’ll go with it anyway. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It wouldn't be a category error it would be a logical error.

I'm saying it's ok to kill X for food if X is BOTH: Not a great ape (~A) AND Not within the range of intelligence (~I)

So it's ~A&~I = Ok to kill for food. So negating this (IE, the things that are NOT ok to kill for food are:) A OR I. As in one must either be a great ape, or possess the specified intelligence level. De morgan's law.

I'm pretty certain this large minority belongs to the great apes. So it wouldn't be ok to kill them for food.

Well, an easy one to start would be a god-like being, or an alien species with much higher intelligence, and probably the vast majority of sentient life throughout the universe, supposing there are some. Either way, I could cook up so many hypotheticals that I don’t know where to start. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Really? Ok, "Is not a great ape and does not possess an intelligence or level consciousness comparable to or higher than humans."

That should also deal with your alien hypothetical.

Note: Originally I wanted to write "greater than or comparable to" but got too lazy because I thought "There is no way he'd bring aliens into this right?"

I discern an error in your reasoning that supposes that because non-human animals do not possess human moral reasoning (and how or why would they?) they possess nothing alike, similar, or comparable. — tim wood

No, not really. But at the same time that doesn’t mean your friends cat understands right from wrong or good from bad.

I discern an error in your reasoning that supposes that because non-human animals do not possess human moral reasoning (and how or why would they?) they possess nothing alike, similar, or comparable. — tim wood

What other type of morality is there other than human? At the very least I would think any morality must include conceptual understanding of right/wrong, good/bad.

But to conclude that because they do not posses human morality they possess none whatever - that reminds to be demonstrated. — tim wood

If you care to explain what it is you’re suggesting they possess I may agree with you.

That, I'm afraid, is not going to do the job. By your logic, we should be killing immoral people but that just doesn't seem the right thing to do. — TheMadFool

You’re misunderstanding. Firstly, you’re applying it to individuals rather than species. I’m not saying any individual without morality is ok to kill. Secondly, being immoral isn’t the same thing as lacking the capacity to understand moral concepts, which is what I’m concerned with. Thirdly, were you to apply this to the entire species, it wouldn’t feel wrong to you. How could it?

No, not really. But at the same time that doesn’t mean your friends cat understands right from wrong or good from bad. — Pinprick

Same mistake! But why did you pass this by unnoticed?
"Maybe then you can explain why a friend's cat rescued two hamsters that had been abandoned outside in Winter, bringing them inside where they became boon companions."

What other type of morality is there other than human? — Pinprick

Every other! You've been undone by your lack of precision both in thinking and language. Your question should have been, to make sense, "What other type of human morality is there other than human (morality)?" To which the obvious answer is, none. Or perhaps you think that morality can only be human. If that was what you meant, that becomes definitional, and you were bound to give notice of that.

And right and wrong and good and bad? You've never really observed any animals, have you. Mama bear, mama cat, mama duck, all have very definite ideas as to what is right and wrong for their cubs, kittens, ducklings. Allow for the idea and you can scarcely fail to observe it. Even squirrels.

Every other! You've been undone by your lack of precision both in thinking and language. — tim wood

I’m asking you to be more precise. As it stands now, morality is a term that describes aspects of human thinking and behavior. You’re positing that non-human morality exists, but haven’t explained what that is. You point to behavior, is that all the criteria needed to qualify as morality?

Mama bear, mama cat, mama duck, all have very definite ideas as to what is right and wrong for their cubs, kittens, ducklings. — tim wood

Simply because animals act in this way doesn’t mean they possess ideas. That requires a higher order of cognition than has been shown they possess (at least for the majority). Their behavior can be instinctive, and I’m arguing usually is. How can you confidently say that mother bears know what they’re doing and why, just by observing their behavior?

You’re misunderstanding. Firstly, you’re applying it to individuals rather than species. I’m not saying any individual without morality is ok to kill. Secondly, being immoral isn’t the same thing as lacking the capacity to understand moral concepts, which is what I’m concerned with. Thirdly, were you to apply this to the entire species, it wouldn’t feel wrong to you. How could it? — Pinprick

You're, I'm afraid, mistaken. There are two issues at stake:

1. The difference between animals and humans (interspecies). [The Name A Trait Argument]

2. The difference between one person and another (intraspecies).

Why do we not or, at the very least, are reluctant to kill each other?

The answer to that should aid you in understanding what I said.

I’m asking you to be more precise. As it stands now, morality is a term that describes aspects of human thinking and behavior. — Pinprick

And I have asked you to account for the complex behavior of an intelligent house cat.

As you have defined it, there is nowhere to go to. Non-human animals do not have (human) morality or (human) ideas. But do you imagine, as I believe some people did, and that perhaps some people still do, that non-human animals are just "wet" machines, biological analogues if you will of an automobile?

And why would you suppose that, even if non-human animals don't have - not being human - certain human qualities that they cannot have non-human animal analogous behaviors. Especially as most non-human animal owners and observers would aver that they do?

So, on your view, there should be no morality at all because there was none once upon a time in our evolutionary past? That is what is entailed by that logic. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

How did you come up with this conclusion? Read your question below again, please. Did I say there's no morality? Do not generalize.

“What is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food?” — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I said none -- because there is nothing that is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food. So, let me rephrase that. There was no justification given before for eating animals. Humans just did. And there isn't gonna be one now. There is no justification that is sufficient that would allow eating humans for food, and nothing for animals either.

:flower:

:flower:

Ready for the reductio to this view? Just think of all the things our ancestors believed necessary for their survival: world conquest, human sacrifice, slavery, etc. The list goes on. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Yeah but belief isn't fact, people died from starvation and malnourishment without eating animals. No one died because some empire didn't conquer Antarctica, a man wasn't thrown into a volcano, or a people weren't enslaved, though they may have believed that, it doesn't make it so whereas yes eating is literally a biologic need that if unaddressed is more or less immediately fatal.

More broadly though, I think it has to do with size. No one cares about an ant or a roach or a flea, but a great blue whale or bear even (though the hostility is a factor) is so majestic it's an objectionable tragedy that will get you scolded on social media. Again, more psychology. Kind of ridiculous but it seems to be a combination of observable intelligence, size, and being able to relate to. You can hear a dog or cat whimper or scream in pain, as do we. Something that can't communicate in the way we do just seems like a lesser being. It also helps if said creature doesn't try or is unable to kill you.

It also helps if said creature doesn't try or is unable to kill you. — Outlander

Very true. I always take the easy kill. Low risk, high reward...? :grin:

First off what are traits that matter to the issue? A trait, insofar as the name a trait argument is concerned, is either a quality possessed by animals which if present in a human would justify the killing of that human or a quality absent in animals which if absent in a human would be reason enough to kill that human. For simplicity, let's refer to this trait as X.

The name the trait argument asks what is X? Clearly, offing a human is a no-go area i.e. X doesn't exist (set aside for the moment that humans do kill each other and consider only the fact that no person, save some deranged individuals, ever really wants to kill another person).

What does that mean?

Examine closely what trait X is. Trait X is:

1. A trait either present in animals and absent in humans or absent in animals and present in humans. (implied is a trait difference)

2. This trait when carried over to within the human family gives us a reason to kill humans.

There are two components to the definition of trait X (vide supra).

Non-vegetarians can now claim that the nonexistence of X (1 + 2) in no way affects their reason for eating meat (1).

:chin: :chin: :chin:

Nonvegetarians — TheMadFool

Is that the pc term for carnivore?

Is that the pc term for carnivore? — Merkwurdichliebe

Non-vegetarians could be omnivores (not meat only). Carnivores feed exclusively on meat. I dunno!

Non-vegetarians could be omnivores (not meat only). Carnivores feed exclusively on meat. I dunno! — TheMadFool

Yes, of course. I am mistaken.

Interestingly enough humans cannot be carnivores, exclusively, due to the noted occurrence of scurvy when without fruits or vegetables for prolonged periods, yet the main argument for vegetarianism is "not eating animal products" but that conveniently does not include breast milk for obvious reasons, while socially breast milk is not an "animal product" is surely is product from a mammal, so depending on how rigid your beliefs are we still do in fact require food product from mammals.

Interestingly enough humans cannot be carnivores, exclusively, due to the noted occurrence of scurvy when without fruits or vegetables for prolonged periods, yet the main argument for vegetarianism is "not eating animal products" but that conveniently does not include breast milk for obvious reasons, while socially breast milk is not an "animal product" is surely is product from a mammal, so depending on how rigid your beliefs are we still do in fact require food product from mammals. — Outlander

Just to clarify, (I am not trying to be antagonistic here) but it is not vegetarianism, but veganism that refuses to eat "animal products" in general. Vegetarians only refuse to eat certain specific animals.

Yes, of course. I am mistaken. — Merkwurdichliebe

:grin: It's a complicated argument for me. Sorry if my volte-face offends you. Not intentional.

:grin: It's a complicated argument for me. Sorry if my volte-face offends you. Not intentional. — TheMadFool

It is impossible for TheMadFool to offend merkwuerdich

Really? Ok, "Is not a great ape and does not possess an intelligence or level consciousness comparable to or higher than humans." — khaled

This is another category error. And it is because we are trait equalizing the traits true of a given human to that of a given animal. So the category error would occur when you try reverse equalizing what is true of a given animal to that of a given human. This one because we are taking the differential traits of an animal to replace those of a human such as lower intelligence (the being we imagine is a human but with the intelligence of a cow or pig, for instance), or not of the genus homo (we are removing the genus of the human we are imagining with that of the animal, which is necessarily not homo sapien). Therefore, when you name "is a human," or "is of the genus homo," it is taking from the wrong category of traits because the human already has that property, and thus it cannot be given to them, and likewise the animal doesn't have the property, thus they cannot offer it as a trait to give.

I said none -- because there is nothing that is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food. — Caldwell

That entails a contradiction in itself. If you remember the line of questioning at the beginning of the dialogue process of name the trait, where we were asked if we subscribe to a moral system, then if the system is consistent, subsequently whether or not the system includes the believe that humans should not be killed for food, and finally if the system includes the belief that animals likewise should not be killed for food. You only get to the 'name the trait' equalization process by answering: yes to the moral system, yes to its consistency requirements, yes to the view that humans should not be killed for food, and NO to the extension of such a view to nonhuman animals. So, by answering that there is no trait, you are saying both that there is and is not a set of traits which gives humans moral value but not non-human animals. if there are no such traits to make the difference, then the animal would have moral value so not to kill and ear them. However, by engaging in the name a trait process, you are taking a stand against the position. The vegan would just welcome you aboard, or explain what a proposition and it's negation are.

My criticism probably won't be useful or convincing to you, but here goes. I draw the line at premise one - a moral system - in the way both your opponent and you apparently intend it, i.e. as a set of general, simple, exceptionless principles styled after logical, mathematical or simple scientific theories, such as Newtonian mechanics. While I am not a moral nihilist, I don't think that real morality either does or ought to conform to such a system.

That this is how both you and this AskYourself person see a "moral system" in this way can be seen in how hypothetical moral stances are framed, attacked and defended. Your opponent doesn't even consider a simple proposition such as "it is acceptable to eat animals" or "it is wrong to eat humans" - likely because such specific maxims don't seem like they belong in a simple axiomatic system. No, ethical principles ought to refer to something general and abstract, such as "intelligence," from which specific instances can be derived.

Then there is an expectation of clear distinctions and intolerance of moral ambiguity, which is exemplified both in the "trait equalization process" and in your debate with @khaled. The objection to the soundness of my naive maxims would be that one can imagine a series of hypotheticals in which humans become more and more animal-like or animals become more and more human-like, blurring the boundary between the two categories and leading to moral ambiguity. To which I say: So what? Yes, boundaries can be blurry, and moral ambiguity is a fact of life. If that disqualifies my ethics from being systematic, then so be it.

Yes, boundaries can be blurry, and moral ambiguity is a fact of life. If that disqualifies my ethics from being systematic, then so be it — SophistiCat

Excellent post.

And it is because we are trait equalizing the traits true of a given human to that of a given animal. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I could just name: "Is not a great ape" as the trait that animals possess that makes them ok to kill for food. There is no fundamental difference between saying something lacks X trait, and saying something has the trait "not X". For example: I could call someone "lazy". Or I could say they are "not productive". Exactly the same thing.

Let's say "Killable" is a trait that means: "Is not a great ape and does not possess an intelligence or level of consciousness comparable to or higher than humans."

Now I say that the trait that animals possess that makes them ok to kill for food is that they're "killable" as defined above.

human already has that property, and thus it cannot be given to them, and likewise the animal doesn't have the property, thus they cannot offer it as a trait to give. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Now it doesn't have the above problem. Humans do not have the property killable, and animals (the ones we eat for food) do have the property killable. See how easy it is to convert between these supposedly different categories? "Lacks trait X" is just another way of saying "Has trait Y". It's purely a language thing.

There aren't two separate categories here.