<!DOCTYPE html><HTML lang="en"> <head><meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Bailey (Andrew M.) - The Elimination Argument (Theo Todman's Book Collection - Paper Abstracts) </title> <link href="../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <BODY> <CENTER> <div id="header"><HR><h1>Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts</h1><HR></div><A name="Top"></A> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_20/PaperSummary_20779.htm">The Elimination Argument</A></th></tr> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../Authors/B/Author_Bailey (Andrew M.).htm">Bailey (Andrew M.)</a></th></tr> <tr><th>Source: Philosophical Studies 168 (2014): 475-482</th></tr> <tr><th>Paper - Abstract</th></tr> </TABLE> </CENTER> <P><CENTER><TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=800><tr><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_20/PaperSummary_20779.htm">Paper Summary</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_20/PaperCitings_20779.htm">Books / Papers Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_20/PapersToNotes_20779.htm">Notes Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF="#ColourConventions">Text Colour-Conventions</a></td></tr></TABLE></CENTER></P> <hr><P><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><u>Author s Abstract</u><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li><a name="1"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">Animalism</A><SUP>1</SUP> is the view that we are animals: living, breathing, wholly material beings. Despite its considerable appeal, <a name="2"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>2</SUP> has come under fire. </li><li>Other philosophers have had much to say about objections to <a name="3"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>3</SUP> that stem from reflection on personal identity over time. But one promising objection (the  Elimination Argument ) has been overlooked. </li><li>In this paper, I remedy this situation and examine the Elimination Argument in some detail. I contend that the Elimination Argument is both unsound and unmotivated.</li></ol></FONT><BR><u>Author s Introduction</u><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li>Materialism about human persons, let us say, is the thesis that we are wholly material beings. Interesting though it is, materialism is not a complete answer to the question of <a name="4"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_7/Notes_734.htm">what we are</A><SUP>4</SUP>. For materialism does not conclusively settle the question of whether we are simple or composite; and if composite, whether we are organisms or brains or cerebral hemispheres, or nervous systems, or proper temporal parts of such or things constituting but not identical to such  and so on. Materialism rules out some forms of dualism, but it doesn t do much more than that.</li><li>I think materialism is true. I also think <a name="5"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>5</SUP> (the thesis that we are animals  living, wholly material beings) is the most plausible version of materialism on offer. If I m right about this, arguments against <a name="6"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>6</SUP> are of double interest. For if sound, they provide evidence, not just against <a name="7"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>7</SUP>, but against materialism as well. Despite its considerable appeal, <a name="8"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>8</SUP> is a minority view amongst contemporary philosophers. It s not entirely clear why this is so. Eric Olson offers this charitable explanation: there are just too many plausible-sounding arguments against the <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P20779_9">view</A></U><SUB>9</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P20779_9"></A>! Olson has done much to rebut <a name="9"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_1/Notes_112.htm">arguments against animalism</A><SUP>10</SUP> (especially those stemming from reflection about personal identity over time). But new objections keep on coming. In this paper, I will examine an <a name="10"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_1/Notes_112.htm">objection</A><SUP>11</SUP> (the  Elimination Argument ) to <a name="11"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>12</SUP> recently offered by Hud Hudson. I shall contend that the Elimination Argument is both unsound and unmotivated. </li></ol></FONT><BR><u>Sections</u><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li>Introduction</li><li>The elimination argument <ul type="disc"><li><b>Elimination Principle</b> (EP). If x and y are both human person candidates and at most one of x and y is a human person, but y has superfluous parts whereas x doesn t, then x is the better candidate for the <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P20779_13">office</A></U><SUB>13</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P20779_13"></A>. </li><li><b>Conflict</b>. If the Elimination Principle is true, <a name="12"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>14</SUP> is false. </li><li>Therefore, <a name="13"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_1/Notes_112.htm">animalism is false</A><SUP>15</SUP> (from EP and Conflict). </li></ul> </li><li>Against the elimination principle </li><li>Conclusion </li></ol></FONT> <u>Author s Conclusion</u><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li><a name="14"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">Animalism</A><SUP>16</SUP> is, in my view, the most plausible form of materialism. Like many plausible views, it has come under fire. </li><li>I haven t answered all of the objections to the view, but in this paper, I have shown that one recent objection by Hudson is unmotivated and unsound. </li><li>I conclude that <a name="15"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_0/Notes_24.htm">animalism</A><SUP>17</SUP>  and materialism  are not so badly off after all. </li></ol></FONT><hr><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><B>Comment: </B><BR><BR>See <a name="W2432W"></a><A HREF = "http://andrewmbailey.com/Elimination.pdf" TARGET = "_top">Link</A>.<BR><BR><HR><BR><U><B>In-Page Footnotes</U></B><a name="On-Page_Link_P20779_9"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P20779_9"><B>Footnote 9</B></A></U>: <FONT COLOR = "800080"><ul type="disc"><li> I imagine that most philosophers could easily rattle off half a dozen <a name="16"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_1/Notes_112.htm">arguments against   Animalism  </a>, as the view that you and I are animals is sometimes called. Here are a few favourites: <ol type="i"><li>If you were an animal, you would be identical with your body (or at any rate with some human body). But no human body can think or feel or act, as you can. </li><li>Persons and animals have different persistence conditions: the organism that is your body could outlive you (if you lapsed into a persistent vegetative state), or you could outlive it (if your <a name="17"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_7/Notes_763.htm">brain were transplanted</a> and the rest of you destroyed). But a thing cannot outlive itself. </li><li>Persons and animals have different criteria of synchronic identity: any <a name="18"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1265.htm">human animal</a> could be associated with two different persons at once (as cases of split personality). Thus, no person is an animal. </li><li>These experiences  the ones I am having now  are essentially mine. But they are only contingently associated with any particular animal. Hence, I have a property that no animal has . </li></ol></li><li><a name="19"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_05/Abstract_5120.htm">Olson (Eric) - Human Atoms</A>", 1998, pp. 396 397</li></ul> </FONT><a name="On-Page_Link_P20779_13"></A><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P20779_13"><B>Footnote 13</B></A></U>: <ul type="disc"><li><a name="20"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_14/Abstract_14535.htm">Hudson (Hud) - I am Not an Animal!</A>", 2007 p. 218.</li></ul> <FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><HR></P><a name="ColourConventions"></a><p><b>Text Colour Conventions (see <A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1025.htm">disclaimer</a>)</b></p><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</li><LI><FONT COLOR = "800080">Mauve</FONT>: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); &copy; the author(s)</li></OL> <BR><HR><BR><CENTER> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <TR><TD WIDTH="30%">&copy; Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2018.</TD> <TD WIDTH="40%">Please address any comments on this page to <A HREF="mailto:theo@theotodman.com">theo@theotodman.com</A>.</TD> <TD WIDTH="30%">File output: <time datetime="2018-08-02T09:25" pubdate>02/08/2018 09:25:10</time> <br><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1010.htm">Website Maintenance Dashboard</A></TD></TR> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="#Top">Return to Top of this Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="40%"><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1140.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="../../index.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Home Page</A></TD> </TR></TABLE></CENTER><HR> </BODY> </HTML>