Skip to main content Accessibility help

Hegel on the Normativity of Animal Life

  • Nicolás García Mills (a1)


My aim in this paper is to show that and how animal organisms are appropriate subjects of normative evaluation, on Hegel's view. I contrast my reading with the interpretive positions of Sebastian Rand and Mark Alznauer. I disagree with Rand and agree with Alznauer that animal organisms are normatively evaluable for Hegel. I substantiate my disagreement with Rand, and supplement Alznauer's interpretation, by spelling out the role that the ‘generic process’ or ‘genus process [Gattungsprozess]’ plays within Hegel's account of animal organisms and their normative evaluability. In the course of my discussion, I highlight the main differences that Hegel purports to identify between animal and vegetable organisms and suggest that the upshot of those differences is that some but not all plants are normatively evaluable, by his lights. I also situate Hegel's discussion of the Gattungsprozess within the debate on biological functions in the philosophy of biology over the last few decades.



Hide All
Alznauer, M. (2016), ‘Hegel's Theory of Normativity’, Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2:2: 196211.
Baldwin, T. (1991), ‘The Identity Theory of Truth’, Mind 100:397: 3552.
Brinkmann, K. (1996), ‘Hegel on the Animal Organism’, Laval Théologique et Philosophique 52:2: 135–53.
Cummins, R. (1975), ‘Functional Analysis’, The Journal of Philosophy 72:20: 741–65.
Garson, J. (2016), A Critical Overview of Biological Functions. Cham: Springer.
Haase, M. (unpublished), ‘Vegetation and Individuation: What Can the Plant Teach Us About Thought?’
Halbig, C. (2002), Objektives Denken. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Khurana, T. (2013), ‘Life and Autonomy: Forms of Self-Determination in Kant and Hegel’, in Khurana, T. (ed.), The Freedom of Life: Hegelian Perspectives. Berlin: August.
Khurana, T. (2017), Das Leben der Freiheit. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Kreines, J. (2013), ‘Kant and Hegel on Teleology and Life from the Perspective of the Debates about Free Will’, in Khurana, T. (ed.), The Freedom of Life: Hegelian Perspectives. Berlin: August.
Kreines, J. (2015), Reason in the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, P. (2001), What Functions Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Millikan, R. (1984), Language, Thought, and other Biological Categories. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Millikan, R. (1989), ‘In Defence of Proper Functions’, Philosophy of Science 56:2: 288302.
Mossio, M., Saborido, C. and Moreno, A. (2009), ‘An Organizational Account of Biological Functions’, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 60: 813–41.
Neander, K. (1991), ‘The Teleological Notion of Function’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69:4: 454–68.
Rand, S. (2015), ‘What is Wrong with Rex? Hegel on Animal Defect and Individuality’, European Journal of Philosophy 23:1: 6886.
Stern, R. (1993), ‘Did Hegel hold an Identity Theory of Truth?’, Mind 102:408: 645–47.
Stone, A. (2018), Nature, Ethics and Gender in German Romanticism and Idealism. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hegel on the Normativity of Animal Life

  • Nicolás García Mills (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.