Environmental Values 6 (4):393-410 (1997)

This paper will argue that posing the question 'what is an animal?' is neither irrelevant nor futile. By looking more closely at four conceptions of what is an animal as held implicitly by the general public, - by certain philosophers of animal liberation, by apologists for zoos and by the community of zoologists - it will attempt to show that the first three are partial and decontextualised. On the other hand, the zoological account is obviously more comprehensive, and it will be argued that, if suitably teased out, it involves a properly contextualised conception set against the notions of species, habitat, ecosystem and of evolutionary processes in the past . Such a rounder and more historical characterisation will transcend the usual polarisation between so-called individualism and holism in environmental philosophy. The transcendence of this perceived dichotomy is shown also to have practical implications for environmental policy-making with regard to issues like biodiversity and the saving of animals from extinction
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3197/096327197776679022
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,391
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
16 ( #582,988 of 2,326,144 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #646,834 of 2,326,144 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes