ok well that line of argument falls prey to a line-drawing fallacy. there is a clear difference between people and non-human animals. even if there is no singular trait, or no less-than-complete set of traits that we can point to as the distinguishing mark, it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.
SINCE THAT IS NOT WHERE YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE HEADING
i would just say “we’re human” and, in light of the rebuttal to the NTT argument (which you weren’t conciously advancing), i think it’s that is sufficient.
right, but the thing that makes it wrong to push a toddler off a cliff may not apply to non-human animals.
Like what? What criteria would allow for toddlers to be given moral consideration that would exclude animals?
level with me: is this NTT?
NTT?
“name the trait”
Never heard of the term before now, but yeah I suppose it is NTT.
ok well that line of argument falls prey to a line-drawing fallacy. there is a clear difference between people and non-human animals. even if there is no singular trait, or no less-than-complete set of traits that we can point to as the distinguishing mark, it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.
SINCE THAT IS NOT WHERE YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE HEADING
i would just say “we’re human” and, in light of the rebuttal to the NTT argument (which you weren’t conciously advancing), i think it’s that is sufficient.
Isn’t this just the is-ought problem though? Just because we currently distinguish between animals and humans doesn’t mean we ought to.
i don’t think so. it’s clear that pigs aren’t human. they are different.