Affiliation:
1. London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Abstract
Abstract
Derek Parfit famously argued that personal identity is not what matters for prudential concern about the future. Instead, he argues what matters is Relation R, a combination of psychological connectedness and continuity with any cause. This revisionary conclusion, Parfit argued, has profound implications for moral theory. It should lead us, among other things, to deny the importance of the separateness of persons as an important fact of morality. Instead, we should adopt impersonal consequentialism. In this paper, I argue that Parfit is mistaken about this last step. His revisionary arguments about personal identity and rationality have no implications for moral theory. We need not decide whether Relation R or personal identity contain what matters if we want to retain the importance of the separateness of persons.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference33 articles.
1. ‘Should Ethics be More Impersonal? a Critical Notice of Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons’;Adams;The Philosophical Review,1989
2. ‘Has Kant Refuted Parfit?’;Blackburn,1997
3. ‘Rational Egoism and the Separateness of Persons’;Brink,1997
4. ‘Self-Love and Altruism’;Brink;Soc Phil Pol,1997
5. ‘Utilitarian metaphysics?’;Broome,1991
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. What We Owe Past Selves;Journal of Applied Philosophy;2023-04-19