Contemporary philosophy · 1942–2017

Parfit

Parfit argues that personal identity may matter less than the psychological relations that connect lives across time.

Parfit in a shaded warm-grey editorial portrait, carrying a muted-gold rangefinder camera low at his hip.

Derek Parfit was a British philosopher whose work transformed debates about personal identity, future generations, reasons and moral theory. Through tightly constructed thought experiments, he argued that identity is not always determinate and that morality must take seriously people whose existence depends on our choices.

MindEthicsAgencyJustice

The question he enters

The question Parfit enters

If your psychology divided perfectly between two future people, what would be lost when neither was strictly identical with you?
Personal identityPersonal identityThe study of what makes someone the same person across time and change.Population ethicsPopulation ethicsThe study of moral questions about how many people exist, who exists and how their wellbeing should be compared.Moral philosophyMoral philosophyThe systematic study of moral value, obligation, character and justified action.

The central move

Separate survival from strict identity

Parfit treats persons as constituted by physical and psychological continuities rather than by a further indivisible self. In branching cases, identity may fail to be one-to-one while memory, intention and character continue. This suggests that what prudentially matters can survive even when the question 'which future person is me?' has no single answer.

Key ideas

Terms that carry the argument.

Psychological continuity
Overlapping chains of memory, intention, belief and character that connect stages of a life.
Reductionism about persons
The view that facts about personal identity consist in more basic physical and psychological relations, with no further ego fact.
Relation R
Psychological connectedness and continuity with the right kind of cause, which Parfit argues is what matters in survival.
Non-identity problem
The difficulty of explaining how choices wrong future people when different choices would have caused different people to exist.

Where the view strains

Objections and limits.

First-person concern may resist reduction

Even if identity facts reduce to continuity, people may reasonably care whether one numerically identical subject survives.

Population ethics produces severe paradoxes

Impartial aggregation can lead towards the repugnant conclusion or other choices that conflict with strong intuitions about lives and equality.

Philosopher Compendium

Agreement is a poor substitute for understanding the move.

Philosophy Lab