Abstract:
I discuss certain general features of the personal identity sub-debate between Animalism and Psychological or “neo-Lockean” views. I start by noting a sense in which Animalism has a natural advantage and might be argued to be the “default” view in this debate. I note the ease with which many people have nevertheless apparently accepted Psychological views, meaning that they have not been put off by the added ontological or epistemological burdens imposed by this choice. I discuss a couple of central reasons which have been offered for thinking Psychological views offend against “common sense”, and discuss a “minimal” version of the much-debated constitution relation, arguing against Animalists who reject the very possibility of such a relation.
