Synthese

, Volume 162, Issue 3, pp 313–324 | Cite as

Persons, animals, and identity

Article

Abstract

The paper is concerned with how neo-Lockean accounts of personal identity should respond to the challenge of animalist accounts. Neo-Lockean accounts that hold that persons can change bodies via brain transplants or cerebrum transplants are committed to the prima facie counterintuitive denial that a person is an (biologically individuated) animal. This counterintuitiveness can be defused by holding that a person is biological animal (on neo-Lockean views) if the “is” is the “is” of constitution rather than the “is” of identity, and that a person is identical with an animal in a sense of “animal” different from that which requires the persistence conditions of animals to be biological. Another challenge is the “too many minds problem”: if persons and their coincident biological animals share the same physical properties, and mental properties supervene on physical properties, the biological animal will share the mental properties of the person, and so should itself be a person. The response to this invokes a distinction between “thin” properties, which are shared by coincident entities, and “thick” properties which are not so shared. Mental properties, and their physical realizers, are thick, not thin, so are not properties persons share with their bodies or biological animals. The paper rebuts the objection that neo-Lockean accounts cannot explain how persons can have physical properties. To meet a further problem it is argued that the biological properties of persons and those of biological animals are different because of differences in their causal profiles.

Keywords

Neo-Lockean view Animalism Coincident entities Persistence conditions Psychological continuity Brain/cerebrum transplant “is” of identity “is” of constitution Thin property Thick property Too many minds problem Microphysical states of affairs Biological animal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker L.R. (2000). Persons and bodies, a constitution view. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Olson E. (1997). The human animal. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Olson E. (2002). What does functionalism tell us about personal identity. Nous 34(4): 682–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Shoemaker S. (1984). Personal identity: A materialist’s account. In: Shoemaker S., Swinburne R. (eds) Personal identity. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  5. Shoemaker, S. (1997). Self and substance. In Philosophical Perspectives, 11, Mind, Causation, and World, 283–304.Google Scholar
  6. Shoemaker S. (1999). Self, body, and coincidence. Aristotelian Supplementary Volume LXIII: 287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Shoemaker S. (2001). Realization and mental causation. In: Gillett C., Barry Loewer (eds) Physicalism and its discontents. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Sage School of PhilosophyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations