Logo image
Identity and What Matters in Survival: Cause, Content or Continuity?
Graduate Thesis/Dissertation   Open access

Identity and What Matters in Survival: Cause, Content or Continuity?

Andrew Barnes Rutherford
Master of Arts - MA, University of Otago
University of Otago
2021
Handle:
https://hdl.handle.net/10523/12544

Abstract

Parfit Causality Swampman Survival Groundhog Day What matters in survival Teleportation Further fact Content similarity Network identity Time loop
Derek Parfit maintains in Reasons and Persons that personal identity consists in two things. Person A and person B are the same person only if: 1. A and B are psychologically very similar [R&P 216], that is, in their psychological states, including memory and desire, and also personality traits and tastes. And: 2. A and B are connected by the “right kind of cause" [R&P 216]; that is, they have the same body over time. Parfit also maintains, however, that personal identity does not matter, in the sense that what I care about when I have special concern for my future states does not depend on identity. Person B, really matters to Person A, in Parfit's view, only if: 1. A and B are psychologically very similar. And: 2. A and B are connected by "any cause" [R&P 217]; that is, I may still care about a person who does not have the same body as me so long as we are very similar and connected in some other fashion. For example, a teleportation machine that destroys my body while reproducing the relevant psychological traits in another body is a cause that connects me to the other person in such a way that I will have special concern for that person. I argue here that Parfit's second causal criterion is neither necessary nor sufficient for justifying special concern. I accept the first criterion as a necessary condition and introduce and defend a different second criterion that emphasises social connectedness. I maintain that A has justified special concern for B only if 1 obtains and: 2. Relevant social connections recognise A and B as the same person, and that person is in some way at least potentially accessible to them. In defending this view, I present various accounts of personal identity and of what matters (Part 1 and 2), and I argue that Parfit's causal criterion for special concern fails (Chapter 3). Then, I present my account of social connectedness (Chapter 6) and defend its importance for justified special concern (Chapter 7). Finally, I give some examples that show how it works in various scenarios. (Part 3)
pdf
Andrew Rutherford Masters Final rechecked 3:11:21.pdfDownloadView

Metrics

353 File views/ downloads
203 Record Views

Details

Logo image