Parfit's Argument That Personal Identity Is Not What Matters

323 Words1 Page

Parfit argues that personal identity is not what matters. He states that whether a future person could be him depends on the inherited features between him and the other person and not what happens to the other person; and because personal identity is significant it cannot be determined by a trivial fact, therefore, personal identity is not what matters. Parfit believes that philosophers put too much importance on the idea of personal identity, when he argues that humanity cares more about survival. According to Parfit, we care more about the deaths of those who are psychologically continuous with ourselves. Therefore, I care that some person who is continuous to me continues to exist and that is how I survive. Parfit also uses the My Division case to argue that personal identity is nonconventional and does not matter. …show more content…

In contrast, his brother’s brains are damaged but their bodies are fine. Parfit splits his brain and transfers them to his two brothers who believe that they are Parfit and have lived their life as him. His identity is not preserved but his psychology is continuous because it is split into two people who exist as he did. We can put this into argument form. We can say that p is Parfit before he split his brain, q is Parfit’s brain in the left hemisphere of the brain, and r is Parfit’s brain in the right hemisphere of the brain. If P=Q and P=R, then we can conclude that Q=R. However, this can’t be true as Q and R have Parfit’s brain located in different areas. But because P equals both Q and R we can conclude that Q and R are psychological continues of P. Therefore, as said earlier we tend to care about the deaths of those who exist continuous with ourselves because preserving yourself is the key to Parfit’s

Open Document