Hit but not down. The substance view in light of the criticism of Lovering and Simkulet.

Abstract

In his article 'The substance view: A critique', Rob Lovering argues that the substance view -according to which a human person comes into existence at the moment of conception - leads to such implausible implications that this view should be abandoned. I responded to his reductio arguments in 'A critique of Rob Lovering's criticism of the substance view' and concluded that his arguments did not justify a rejection of the substance view. Now Lowering and William Simkulet have both responded to my criticism, claiming that my criticism of Lovering's article did not refute his original arguments. In this article I respond to their criticism and conclude that, while the substance view has some less plausible implications, none of them justify a complete refutation of this view.