The Argument Against Animalism

Animalism is about what it means to be a person, it touches upon personal identity in human beings in a biological sense. Simply put, animalism is the theory that living humans are animals, that we lack morality, spirituality and intellectuality and are only motivated by sensual or physical forces. In Olson’s argument for animalism he states that it isn’t obvious that we are animals, but proves that we are considered a kind of animal, that can be identified by our body. He thinks that even though we are not identical to an animal, we are still considered to be animals, just a different species. Many philosophers disagree with this sentiment and believe the opposite, that we can only be identified by our minds and souls. “It is also a truism

Regan’s essay is meant to argue that animals should have equal rights. One might say we are nothing to animals, we can do nothing that harms them. Animals themselves are morally significant they are not people because they have no rights, but humans have rights that demand respect, humans take interest in animals they care about and it would upset humans to see them in pain. It is an indirect duty to respect animals because we care about other people’s feelings. To abuse an animal is to do wrong by a human not the actual animal (Regan, 2). Unless we accept that animals have rights from the start, one can assume that animals don’t feel pain and should be allowed to be abused. Still some have trouble grasping the concept that humans are animals, because if humans are animals with rights, and animals have rights, than can we also assume that animals are humans? Regan says that anything that has a life is a person, but doesn’t back up his reason to the extent that would persuade someone to believe his theory, however he does encourage people to set their own bar. Regan also reminds us that if the bar we set is too high than every human might not make the cut. Reagan takes Hobbes’ theory on social contract into consideration when forming the conclusion of how one determines who has rights, who is considered an animal and so on. If

Locke examines the relationship between mind and matter, reality and worth. “We must consider what ‘person’ stands for. I think it is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing at different times and places” (Locke, 115). If we consider what “person” stands for then we might want to rule out the original meaning of the word, the term person means to exclude many human beings. For the ancient romans only the elite men counted as people, meaning that women, the enslaved and children weren’t included. Regan’s theory supersedes Locke’s by putting value on all life, not only intelligent and reasoning beings. A human can be classified as an animal, but what makes us different is the mind, we are capable of empathy. “Consciousness always accompanies thinking, and makes everyone to be what he calls ‘self’ and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things; in this alone consists personal identity” (Locke, 115). Locke states that because we are conscious of the act of thinking we cannot be animals because animals act on instinct. An example of this is when an animal is kicked they immediately react, but when a person is kicked they analyze and process the