Beyond Anthropomorphism: Attributing Psychological Properties to Animals

In L. Beauchamp Tom & R. G. Frey (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press USA. pp. 469--494 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the context of animal cognitive research, anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of uniquely human mental characteristics to animals. Those who worry about anthropomorphism in research, however, are immediately confronted with the question of which properties are uniquely human. One might think that researchers must first hypothesize the existence of a feature in an animal before they can, with warrant, claim that the property is uniquely human. But all too often, this isn't the approach. Rather, there is an a priori argument against attributing some properties to animals. Which features are thought to be uniquely human on a priori grounds? The class can be quite large, including psychological states such as beliefs and desires, personality traits such as confidence or timidity, emotions such as happiness or anger, social organizational properties such as culture or friendship, moral behavior such as punishment or rape. For convenience, I will refer to the members of the class as "psychological properties". One critic includes feeling, purpose, intentionality, consciousness, and even cognition in his list of psychological properties that are incorrectly attributed to animals (Kennedy 1992). Among the critics, there is quite a bit of disagreement about what counts as an anthropomorphic attribution, and this alone should raise questions about the charge. We can identify two different questions about the practice of attributing psychological properties to animals within a scientific context. First we can ask whether it is scientifically respectable to examine questions about the mental, psychological, cultural, etc. states of animals. Those who bemoan anthropomorphism think that we ought not even ask such questions. I will look at the worries about asking the question, and argue that there is no special problem with it. The second question arises with an affirmative answer to the first. Given that it is scientifically respectable to examine whether an animal has a psychological property, there must be some scientifically respectable method for doing the examination..

Other Versions

reprint Andrews, Kristin (2011) "Beyond Anthropomorphism: Attributing Psychological Properties to Animals". In Beauchamp Tom, Frey R. G., The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics,, pp. 469-494: Oxford University Press (2011)

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Belief and representation in nonhuman animals.Sarah Beth Lesson, Brandon Tinklenberg & Kristin Andrews - 2009 - In Sarah Robins, John Symons & Paco Calvo (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 370-383.
Zoomorphism.Bence Nanay - 2018 - Erkenntnis 86 (1):171-186.
Are Nonhuman Animals Persons?Michael Tooley - 2011 - In L. Beauchamp Tom & R. G. Frey (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press USA. pp. 332-70.
Conditioned anti-anthropomorphism.Colin Allen & Grant Goodrich - 2007 - Comparative Cognition and Behavior Reviews 2:147-150.
Critical Anthropomorphism and Animal Ethics.Fredrik Karlsson - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (5):707-720.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-02-08

Downloads
1,985 (#6,613)

6 months
109 (#54,130)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Kristin Andrews
York University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references