🧬Name the Trait

Introduction

Name the Trait (often shortened to NTT) is philosophical test that challenges speciesist discrimination to justify itself. It determines whether a speciesist is guilty of the special pleading fallacy. When speciesism is unjustifiable, veganism becomes a moral obligation in most people's normative ethical framework. Name the Trait can target a speciesist arguing that non-human animals have no moral value whatsoever or a speciesist arguing that non-human animals have value, just not enough value that their interests should be considered more than the 15 minutes of sensory taste pleasure derived from slaughtering them. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading

Formal Definition

Formally, Name the Trait is as follows: 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 "On pain of P∧~P" essentially means you are in contradiction. It is to be read as 'if view denies the given nonhuman animal has moral value you are in contradiction'.

Arguments

Generally, speciesists will try to argue that there is some trait that only humans have which gives humans moral value but not any other sentient beings. From there, their interlocutor will ask them to name the trait. The named trait(s) in a hypothetical human can be changed until the human has the same traits as a nonhuman animal. If the speciesist believes the human still has moral value in spite of the named trait(s) being removed, then the trait wasn't ethically relevant in the first place. If the speciesist believes the human no longer has moral value, then it may be the case that a marginal case human with that/those trait(s) may already exist and a reductio ad absurdum may be made to demonstrate their position is irrational.

Dialogue Form

You believe that there exists a hypothetical human who has moral value. You believe that hypothetical non-human animals do not have moral value. If one-by-one all of the traits of a human were switched to those of a non-human animal, would at any point moral value be lost? If no, you have contradicted yourself. In this hypothetical we have arrived at a non-human animal who is worthy of moral consideration. If yes, the named trait's moral relevancy can be challenged with reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Literally meaning reduced to absurdity, this is a type of argument where the interlocutor's axioms are used in a hypothetical to be shown to be absurd. For example: Speciesist: It's ethical to do whatever we want to other animals. ARA: What is the morally relevant trait that justifies this? Speciesist: They have lesser intelligence. ARA: There are marginal cases of humans who have lower intelligence than some other animals. Therefore your argument logically implies that it's ethical to do whatever we want to those humans, including brutal torture. Since this is generally considered absurd, we can determine that your premise (that 'lesser intelligence is a trait that justifies moral indifference') is false. Brutally torturing mentally disabled people is overwhelmingly accepted as ethically absurd, so this is generally accepted as a refutation of this example speciesist's argument that lesser intelligence is a relevant trait for moral indifference.

Valid for Other Positions

The example speciesist position of 'it's ethical to do whatever we want to other animals' in many several places in this article can be swapped out for other positions such as 'it's ethical to slaughter other animals for 15 minutes of sensory taste pleasure'.