Why animalism matters

Abstract

Here is a question as intriguing as it is brief: what are we? The animalist’s answer is equal in brevity: we are animals. This stark formulation of the animalist slogan distances it from nearby claims—that we are essentially animals, for example, or that we have purely biological criteria of identity over time. Is the animalist slogan—unburdened by modal or criterial commitments—still interesting, though? Or has it lost its bite? In this article we address such questions by presenting a positive case for the importance of animalism and applying that case to recent critiques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Johnson (2016, 127). For other avowed anti-animalists who nonetheless agree that it is a trivial and obvious truth that we are animals, see also Baker (2000, 112), Shoemaker (2008, 318), and Shoemaker (2016, 128–129). Bailey 2016 argues that Baker’s and Shoemaker’s positions collapse into full-blown animalism despite their best intentions.

  2. 2.

    Parfit (2012, 12).

  3. 3.

    Duncan forthcoming a.

  4. 4.

    We here follow Bailey and van Elswyk (forthcoming). On the question of what we are, see Olson (2007, Chapter 1).

  5. 5.

    For citations and more on these alternatives to animalism, see Bailey (2015, 869) and Blatti (2019, section 1.1).

  6. 6.

    Recent defenses of animalism include Bailey (2014), Bailey (2017), Olson (2018), Thornton and Bailey forthcoming, Yang (2013), and Yang (2015). Johansson (2007) and Toner (2011) discuss how to best formulate the view. Thornton (2016) surveys variation within the view. See also all the essays in Blatti and Snowdon (2016).

  7. 7.

    For defense, elaboration, and application of this general argumentative strategy to another domain in metaphysics, see Bailey and Brenner forthcoming.

  8. 8.

    Can merely contradicting other interesting theories make a view interesting? One might think not: the view that we are noses (or middle toes, or elbows, or appendixes…) contradicts every known theory of human nature. And yet it is more of a joke than an interesting theory to be taken seriously. Supplementing the nose view with modal or criterial content (that we are essentially noses, or that we continue to exist only so long as we can smell, for example) changes little; it is still a joke and unworthy of further attention. And yet it still contradicts every known theory of human nature. Here’s what’s going on: various factors determine whether a theory is worth our attention and allegiance. Among them: substantivity, prior probability, probability given our evidence, fruitfulness, and ideological and ontological parsimony. The nose view scores high on substantivity, in fact. It is an interesting view, and would have fascinating ramifications in the ethics of plastic surgery, for one. And it would show that every philosopher who's ever written on the metaphysics of human nature has been wrong not just in the details but in the main. But the nose view scores very low indeed on other dimensions—one may be forgiven for assigning it a very low prior probability, for example—and so may be set aside. We thank an anonymous referee for bringing this objection to our attention.

  9. 9.

    Hamblin (1973) and Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984).

  10. 10.

    This list is from Duncan forthcoming a: 10–11.

  11. 11.

    ‘Animalism’ has sometimes been used to name a thesis that explicitly includes (a) (see Snowdon 1991, 111 and Nichols 2010), (b) (see Madden 2016), or (d) (see Shoemaker 2016). Other animalists—such as Olson (2015), Sauchelli (2017), and Thornton and Bailey forthcoming—are careful to distinguish the core thesis that we are animals from claims like (a) through (e). And that distinction is, of course, central to understanding Duncan’s dilemma.

  12. 12.

    Duncan forthcoming a, 5.

  13. 13.

    Thornton 2019.

  14. 14.

    Duncan forthcoming a, 8.

  15. 15.

    One of us has answered no to this question. See van Elswyk (2018).

  16. 16.

    A different objection is that What are we? is defective and that we’d instead pursue one of Duncan’s other questions if we were truly interested in the metaphysics of human persons. But such an objection would turn on—and require argumentative support from—a number of topics in modality, metaontology, and metaphilosophy. That support is not forthcoming in anything from Duncan (or Johnston, or other anti-animalists). For arguments that What are we? is an especially apt question, see Bailey and van Elswyk forthcoming.

  17. 17.

    Duncan forthcoming a, 11.

  18. 18.

    Duncan forthcoming a: 12. Note that Duncan’s thought experiment is an objection only to some forms of Robust Animalism. Views on which detached cerebra are themselves shrunken human animals—a variation on the view in van Inwagen (1990)—are immune.

  19. 19.

    On which, see Bailey and van Elswyk forthcoming.

  20. 20.

    For defense of this kind of modal skepticism—better, modal agnosticism—as applied to animalism, see Bailey and van Elswyk forthcoming. A general form of modal skepticism appears in van Inwagen (1998). On skeptical stances that specifically focus on thought experiments about personal identity, see Gendler (2002) and Wilkes (1988).

  21. 21.

    Robust Animalists, to be sure, are committed to modal claims about cases like Duncan’s—to their impossibility, that is. We will not take up here the delicate question of whether such commitment is a liability. But note that their commitment need not derive from a fanciful case. It could, instead, stem from a more general claim about substance sortals, for example (on which we say more below).

  22. 22.

    This story requires that something new can come to be—a cerebrum, in this case—merely from the annihilation of surrounding matter. This isn’t as strange as it may seem; consider the statue that comes to be upon the carving away of surrounding marble. But there are still puzzles here, and animalists have had much to say on related issues; see, for example, Olson (2016).

  23. 23.

    Duncan forthcoming a: 13, emphasis original. Duncan’s subsequent discussion focuses on the alleged impossibility of being wrong about something like (ii). His arguments there are not at war with what we claim here, though, which is that it is possible to be wrong about something like (iv).

  24. 24.

    Including Duncan (2015a, b, 2018, 2019, forthcoming b), of course—all of which buttress an introspective approach to personal identity issuing in certain or near-certain judgements.

  25. 25.

    We take issue, then, with Duncan forthcoming a, 15, “The evidence that I’ve given is especially potent. It’s evidence that we all have access to. It’s evidence that we can be directly aware of whenever we think. And it’s evidence that is absolutely foundational to how we reason about and conceptualize ourselves as persons. Thus, rather than being just one consideration among many, this evidence carries special weight. It is certain. It is undeniable”.

  26. 26.

    As in, for example, Olson (2016).

  27. 27.

    Duncan forthcoming a, 16.

  28. 28.

    Also known as the Thinking Animal Argument: see Olson (2003) and Snowdon (1990). Note that there are many other arguments for animalism besides, as in Bailey (2016), Bailey (2017), Blatti (2012), Licon (2012), and Thornton and Bailey forthcoming.

  29. 29.

    On animal as a substance sortal see Olson (1997, 120–123).

  30. 30.

    For the record: two of the authors positively disagree with the move (we prefer a version of Animalism Light that explicitly eschews Robust Animalism); the other author leans towards accepting the thesis that animal is a substance sortal.

  31. 31.

    Johnston (2016, 100).

  32. 32.

    Johnston (2016, 100).

  33. 33.

    For other arguments distinguishing the question of personal ontology from those about personal identity, see Olson (2007, 15–19).

References

  1. Bailey, A. M. (2014). The elimination argument. Philosophical Studies, 168, 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bailey, A. M. (2015). Animalism. Philosophy Compass, 10, 867–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey, A. M. (2016). You are an animal. Res Philosophica, 93, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey, A. M. (2017). Our animal interests. Philosophical Studies, 179, 2315–2328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bailey, A. M., & Brenner, A. (forthcoming). Why composition matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy.

  6. Bailey, A. M., van Elswyk, P. (forthcoming). Generic animalism. Journal of Philosophy.

  7. Baker, L. R. (2000). Persons and bodies: A constitution view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blatti, S. (2012). A new argument for animalism. Analysis, 72(4), 685–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blatti, S., & Snowdon, P. F. (Eds.). (2016). Essays on animalism: Persons, animals, and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blatti, S. (2019). Animalism. In N. Z. Edward (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/animalism/. Accessed July 2019.

  11. Duncan, M. (2015a). I think, therefore I persist. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93(4), 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Duncan, M. (2015b). We are acquainted with ourselves. Philosophical Studies, 172(9), 2531–2549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Duncan, M. (2018). Subjectivity as self-acquaintance. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(3–4), 88–111.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duncan, M. (2019). The self shows up in experience. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 10(2), 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duncan, M. (forthcoming a). Animalism is either false or uninteresting (perhaps both). American Philosophical Quarterly.

  16. Duncan, M. (forthcoming b). A new argument for the phenomenal approach to personal persistence. Philosophical Studies.

  17. Gendler, T. S. (2002). Personal identity and thought-experiments. Philosophical Quarterly, 52(206), 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics. Foris: Dortrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Johnston, M. (2007). ‘Human beings’ revisited: My body is not an animal. In D. W. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 3, pp. 33–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Johnston, M. (2016). Remnant persons: Animalism’s undoing. In S. Blatti & P. F. Snowdon (Eds.), Animalism (pp. 89–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Johansson, J. (2007). What is animalism? Ratio, 20(2), 194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Licon, J. A. (2012). Another argument for animalism: the argument from causal powers. Prolegomena, 11(2), 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Madden, R. (2016). Human persistence. Philosophers Imprint, 16(17), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nichols, P. (2010). Substance concepts and personal identity. Philosophical Studies, 150(2), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Olson, E. (1997). The human animal. Oxford University Press.

  27. Olson, E. T. (2003). An argument for animalism. In J. P. Lizza (Ed.), Defining the beginning and end of life: Readings on personal identity and bioethics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Olson, E. T. (2007). What are we? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Olson, E. T. (2015). What does it mean to say that we are animals? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 22(11), 84–107.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Olson, E. T. (2016). The remnant person problem. In S. Blatti & P. F. Snowdon (Eds.), Essays on animalism: Persons, animals, and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Olson, E. T., et al. (2018). For animalism. In J. Loose (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to substance dualism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Parfit, D. (2012). We are not human beings. Philosophy, 87(01), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sauchelli, A. (2017). The animal, the corpse, and the remnant-person. Philosophical Studies, 174, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shoemaker, S. (2008). Persons, animals, and identity. Synthese, 162(3), 313–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shoemaker, S. (2016). Thinking animals without animalism. In S. Blatti & P. F. Snowdon (Eds.), Animalism (pp. 128–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Snowdon, P. F. (1990). Persons, animals, and ourselves. In C. Gill (Ed.), The Person and the human mind: Issues in ancient and modern philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Snowdon, P. F. (1991). Personal identity and brain transplants. In D. Cockburn (Ed.), Human beings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Thornton, A. K. (2016). Varieties of animalism. Philosophy Compass, 11(9), 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Thornton, A. K. (2019). Disembodied animals. American Philosophical Quarterly, 56(2), 203–217.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Thornton AK, Bailey AM (forthcoming). The feeling animal. Ergo.

  41. Toner, P. (2011). Hylemorphic animalism. Philosophical Studies, 155(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. van Elswyk, P. (2018). Contrast and constitution. The Philosophical Quarterly, 68(270), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material Beings. Cornell University Press.

  44. van Inwagen, P. (1998). Modal epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 92, 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilkes, K. V. (1988). Real people: Personal identity without thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yang, E. (2013). Thinking animals, disagreement, and skepticism. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yang, E. (2015). Unrestricted animalism and the too many candidates problem. Philosophical Studies, 172(3), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to an anonymous referee and Brad Rettler for comments and to Matt Duncan for helpful conversation prior to the writing of this article. Funding from Yale-NUS College and the Singapore Ministry of Education supported this research. Co-authorship is equal.

Funding

Funding was provided by National University of Singapore (Grant No. FY2020-FRC1-008).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew M. Bailey.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bailey, A.M., Thornton, A.K. & van Elswyk, P. Why animalism matters. Philos Stud (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01593-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Animalism
  • Personal ontology
  • Personal identity
  • What are we?