NAME THE TRAIT

“What is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food?”
—AskYourself

“Name the trait” (NTT) is an argument and a dialogue process put forward by vegan YouTuber Isaac Brown, a.k.a. "AskYourself," (link at bottom of page). It’s purpose is to expose either a contradiction or a reduction to absurdity from non-vegan positions attributing moral value to humans sufficient enough to condemn killing them for food, while at the same time denying that sufficient moral value be attributed to non-human animals as well.

NTT begins as a dialogue wherein the interlocutor asks a series of questions. The first question asks whether we should have a moral system (a collection of ideas and principles that we accept for ourselves and apply to others based on the system of values which form the content of our overall moral perspective). The second question is raised only after affirming the previous question. It asks if the moral system we subscribe to should be logically consistent (if we could imagine some possible world in which the principles of the moral system could all be true). Lastly, a third and three-part question is raised, and again only subsequent to affirming the previous two questions. This question first asks if our moral system ascribes sufficient moral value to humans so to condemn killing them for food. If so, the second part of the question if our moral system likewise ascribes (not equal but rather) sufficient moral value to non-human animals. If not, the third and final part of the question asks us what is it that is true of humans that would have to be true of animals in order for us to ascribe sufficient moral value to condemn killing them for food.

The first question asks whether or not we, as individuals, subscribe to some sort of moral system. To be clear, a moral system is simply the set of ideas we hold as guiding moral principles. It is based on the particular values we have and help us in discerning right and wrong behavior. An example of such a principle is expressed in the following proposition: “Murder is wrong”. The proposition is also a logical reflection of a particular value: “Right to life”. Furthermore, the principle can be framed in a multitude of meta ethical frameworks. In deontological terms such as “Unjustified killing is wrong” or in terms of consequentialism “Behavior x is wrong because it results in unjustified killing”. Given this, it is clear that without a moral system to set the standard from which our behavior can be evaluated, and subsequently judged, that any behavior could (in principle) be allowed. This in-itself represents an absurd position because, as a society, we all desire to have some control over our life and wellbeing. Therefore, the only acceptable position would be the affirmative.

YES, I SUBSCRIBE TO A MORAL SYSTEM.

The second question tests our awareness regarding the implications entailed by a moral system that is logically inconsistent. A contradiction takes the form of “P and not -P” whereby a claim or belief and its negation are both held to be true. However, according to the principle of explosion, a moral system affirming that both a proposition and its negation are true, can thereby derive any conclusion. This means that if our moral system contains even one inconsistency it would allow for any act or consequence to be justified. Consider the following example of logical explosion: “P” (The suspect committed a murder) and “-P” (The suspect committed no murder) are both assumed true. If we use one of the terms of the contradiction to form a logical disjunction between “P” (The suspect committed a murder) or “Q” (The suspect deserves to be executed). Since we know that “-P ” (The suspect committed no murder) is both true and not true, and that at least one disjunctive term must be true, we can derive the conclusion: Therefore, “Q” (The suspect deserves to be executed).

The argument is of the form of “P” implies “-P”. Either “P” or “Q”. “-P” therefore “Q”.

P and -P
P or Q
-P
Q

This is quite convincing of the importance of logical consistency within our moral system. Therefore, the only acceptable position would be the affirmative.

YES, THE MORAL SYSTEM MUST BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT.

The third question is designed to set us up by affirming the assertion in premise 1 of the actual NTT argument. You either agree with the truth of the premises which means that the truth of the conclusion must necessarily follow from (thus conceding to veganism), or you otherwise must provide a counter argument for one of the supporting premises to NTT by naming which traits justify the disproportionate attribution of moral value between humans and animals. However, it is purported that every trait, or set of traits, named in attempt to justify the disproportion of moral value logically entails a commitment to an absurd moral position, and in denying the absurd moral position we thus form a contradiction. For example, if “intelligence” is the trait being named which is absent in animals, that if absent in humans would justify killing them for food, it would logically entail a reductio ad absurdum that killing the subset of humans with a comparatively low IQ to that of a cow or pig for food is justified . In other words, it justifies killing the population of humans afflicted with severe mental disabilities—which qualifies as a reprehensible and absurd moral position. Therefore, in the absence of naming which trait, or set of traits, true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food—which also logically entails an acceptable moral position, we are either committed to veganism, or otherwise to denying that animals have sufficient moral value on pain of contradiction.

YES, ANIMALS HAVE SUFFICIENT MORAL VALUE TO CONDEMN KILLING THEM FOR FOOD.

Or, alternatively:

NO, THE ANIMAL LACKS SUFFICIENT MORAL VALUE TO CONDEMN KILLING THEM FOR FOOD NOTWITHSTANDING ALL TRAITS BEING EQUALIZED TO THAT OF THE HUMAN.

The NTT argument which is used to derive the conclusion that animals have moral value would go as follows:

NTT ARGUMENT

P1 - If your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value, then your view can only deny the given nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P^~P.

P2 - Your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value.

C - Therefore, your view can only deny the given nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P^~P.

TRAIT EQUALIZATION PROCESSES

The trait equalization process is a thought experiment in which we imagine a hypothetical series of possible worlds in which the traits that differentiate between a given animal and a given human are being equalized. In the first possible world there is a human, whereas in the last possible world there is an animal. The possible worlds in between represent a series of hypothetical worlds in which a given trait (true) of the human is made equal to that (true) of the animal present in the last hypothetical world. In one such hypothetical world, for instance, the human trait of bipedalism (a method of using only two limbs for locomotion) is being equalized to the animal trait of quadrupedalism (a method of using all four limbs for locomotion). In other words, the bipedal being of the first hypothetical world is equalized to be quadrupedal—same as the being of the last hypothetical world. If such a trait was to be named, then it would entail that all humans who use a method of being on all four limbs for locomotion (which is observed in humans, especially by crawling infants) may be justifiably killed for food.

Moreover, in another such hypothetical world, we can imagine three traits that have been equalized: not being a member of human civilization, lacking moral agency, and not willing to reciprocate mutual cooperation with other humans. (Also note that in naming a non-differential trait—such as being alive, or inhabiting the planet Earth, or other properties already shared—we are simply committing a category error, rather than engaging NTT with intellectual honesty). In considering the named traits, we can easily imagine a scenario of beings who lack all these traits, and yet most would find it absurd to condone killing them for food. Suppose that we discover an indigenous population of humans who reside outside of modern civilization, have no shared group morality, and are openly hostile towards other groups of humans. Would it be acceptable to kill those humans for food? No, it would be absurd! Therefore, it seems that NTT presents us with a possibly insurmountable vegan counter argument by revealing the cognitive dissonance between our behavior and the moral principles predicated on the system of values most common to humanity.

THE CONSEQUENCE OF FAILING TO NAME THE TRAITS WHICH JUSTIFY KILLING ANIMALS AND NOT HUMANS FOR FOOD

Argument in support of veganism as a result of failing to name which trait is true of animals that if true of humans would similarly deprive the attribution of sufficient moral value necessary to condemn killing them for food

P1 – Humans have sufficient moral value so that it is immoral to kill them for food.

P2 – There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause humans to lack sufficient moral value so that it would be immoral to kill them for food.

C – Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by claiming that animals lack sufficient moral value so that it is immoral to kill them for food.

A SOUND REBUTTAL WHICH NECESSARILY AVOIDS ANY ENTAILED ABSURDITY

I fundamentally agree with veganism as an ethical position, and also find the NTT argument and dialogue tactics to be power tools well equipped with sound logic. However, I nonetheless try my best to mount an attack on NTT. This, if for nothing else, is to expose any weaknesses in its defense, or likewise in its counter arguments to non-vegan positions. Furthermore, I believe to have successfully done just that. I believe to have solved NTT and possibly to have produced an ultimate rebuttal. If the trait named which is true of the animal that if true of the human is the external property of the animal lacking vast social normality (as in conformity to the standard behavior of a group of humans, which is typical, accepted, and expected), then the entailed absurdity is not absurd at all. In fact, it’s tautological. If it was a socially acceptable—even expected—behavior which is typical of a society, to kill humans for food, then it would be a trait shared amongst the vast majority of the population. Given this, the high probability of an individual who is pressured to conform to the standard behavior of the society in which they live, to indeed conform to such behavior, is almost certain. So, in other words, the attempted reductio ad absurdum is reduced to a mere tautology. Proof of this can be seen in every human society. If an individual is a member of a social group, of which the vast majority of its population have been normalized to accept and expect the act of killing other humans for food, then the individual necessarily would have a high probability of likewise finding such an act acceptable.

P1 - If killing humans for food is a behavior in which the vast majority of members of a human society are socially conditioned to accept and expect, then killing humans for food is a socially acceptable, and expected behavior.

P2 - In the hypothetical, the humans are members of a human society which is socially conditioned to accept and expect the killing of humans for food as normal behavior.

C - Therefore, in accepting the killing of humans for food, I am thus accepting what already is a socially acceptable, and expected behavior.

P1 - If a behavior is accepted and expected of a member of a social group, then it is not absurd for a member to hold the position that such behavior is acceptable.

P2 - In the hypothetical, it is accepted and expected of members of the social group to kill humans for food.

C - Therefore, it is not absurd for a member to hold the position that such behavior is acceptable.

The purpose of this essay is to draw out any criticism of my stance, my interaction with the hypothetical, and my rebuttal aimed at NTT, first here, in this forum. As I plan on presenting my rebuttal to AskYourself in person, criticism notwithstanding, on his Discord (link below).

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCQNmHyGAKqzOT_JsVEs4eag

https://discord.com/invite/dUPFfby