Premium
Are We Essentially Animals?
Author(s) -
Lim Joungbin
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the philosophical forum
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.134
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 1467-9191
pISSN - 0031-806X
DOI - 10.1111/phil.12230
Subject(s) - argument (complex analysis) , dilemma , epistemology , virtue , identity (music) , sort , argumentative , philosophy , computer science , biology , biochemistry , information retrieval , aesthetics
Animalism is the view that we human individuals are animals. And standard animalists claim that if we are animals, we are animals essentially. This is because they believe that if we are animals, we are essentially members of the human kind (e.g., human animal , Homo sapiens ), and as a result, we have the criterion of identity by virtue of that kind. The goal of this paper is to reject the claim that our being animals implies our essentially being animals. I begin by reformulating the standard animalist's argument for the claim that we are essentially biological entities of some sort. I then argue that the very same argumentative strategy can be applied against standard animalism. Specifically, the standard animalist's reasoning for the claim that we are contingently psychological beings faces a dilemma that undermines the claim that we are animals essentially. In the remainder of the paper, I reply to various objections to my argument and consider a strategy that animalists can pursue in attempting to block the dilemma.