A new argument for animalism

Abstract

Though Aristotelian in spirit, the view known as animalism is a relative latecomer to the debate over personal identity, having been defended only within the past 25 years or so. 1 Its advocates make the following straightforward claim: we are animals. According to the intended reading of this claim, the 'are' reflects the 'is' of numerical identity (not the 'is' of nonidentical constitution); the 'we' is intended to pick out you, me and others of our kind; and 'human animals' is meant to refer to biological organisms of the Homo sapiens species. According to animalism's most sophisticated rival, neo-Lockean constitutionalism, we persons are non-identically constituted by human animals, rather like the way statues are said to be constituted by the lumps of matter with which they coincide. 2 The standard argument for animalism is commonly known as the Thinking Animal Argument (TAA). Very roughly, TAA registers the implausible multiplication of thinkers to which anyone who rejects animalism is committed. 3 Recently, however, a structurally analogous line of argument has been shown

Apie animalizmo banalumą

“…Blatti pasiūlė antrąjį iš paminėtų argumentų (plg. Blatti 2012). Jis yra netiesioginės išvados pobūdžio.…”

Animalism and the Lives of Human Animals

“…Reflection on this candidate argument, I think, brings out why it is difficult to give persuasive examples of it. 4 This is, in outline, the thought that Blatti (2012) is attempting to articulate.…”

Animalism and Deferentialism

“…Call this alternative theory neo‐Lockean constitutionalism or Lockeanism for short. Stephan Blatti () offers to advance the debate between animalism and Lockeanism by providing a new argument for animalism. Carl Gillett () replies to Blatti.…”

“…Blatti's argument appeals to standard evolutionary theory. If animalism is false, then we are not animals, and none of our ancestors were animals either; but standard evolutionary theory says that our distant ancestors were animals; since “the rejection of evolutionary theory is too high a price to pay” (Blatti , 686), animalism is not false. To put the argument another way: standard evolutionary theory is true only if animalism is true; since we should not reject standard evolutionary theory, we should endorse animalism.…”

“…Blatti considers the objection that our immediate ancestors were not animals although our distant ancestors were; as part of his reply, Blatti writes: “natural selection may operate so as to produce new varieties of organisms, but it does not operate so as to produce non ‐organisms. Whatever explanation a [Lockean] gives of the appearance of a new kind of thing – a person non‐identically constituted by a human animal – it will not be an evolutionary story” (Blatti , 686). At the end of his article, Blatti claims that if we are not animals, then we are “not the kind of thing to result from processes of natural selection” (Ib., 689).…”