Parfit, the Reductionist View, and Moral Commitment ABSTRACT: In Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit argues for a Reductionist View of personal identity. According to a Reductionist, persons are nothing over and above the existence of certain mental and/or physical states and their various relations. Given this, Parfit believes that facts about personal identity just consist in more particular facts concerning psychological continuity and/or connectedness, and thus that personal identity can be
section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. I Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010). Parfit aims to defend the following two claims about personal identity: 1. That sometimes questions about personal identity have no clear answer; and 2. That we can still answer important
and that I make my own path with my morals as a guide. I’d probably say it’s my dashing good looks, wit, and charm. My experiences, my parents, and my surroundings, have all contributed to establishing my identity. In Derek Parfit’s writings Reasons and Persons and “Personal Identity,” he discusses his ideas on what would matter most, personal identity or survival, and he claims that it is survival, rather than personal identity that matters. Where Parfit expresses this view, this is where I disagree
Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons": Reasons for A Person's Actions Reading about individuals whose ways of life are dramatically different from our own provides readers with fresh insights into their own experiences and ideas. A reader of A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt, may not be accustomed to the actions of the play's characters. Though, it is important to figure out and understand why the character reacts or acts as he/she does. This enables the reader to have a new or modified outlook on
is Libertarianism. An example of this is the reason why if an action is not determine, then it not enough for it to be free. He reason is that because there is a reason why action
It is okay to kill someone if they are not doing good things. “Never wound a snake; kill it” said by Harriet Tubman. Some reasons are the following, if they are putting other people that are innocent into harm's way. For a person getting raped or harmed then it should be okay to kill that person. Another reason would be if they have already killed someone or if they are planning on doing things to harm many different people and you have proof. Due to the event of it being self defense it should
through the voice of Socrates, his theory of the soul and how it encourages a person to act in a just manner as a just person will always be better off. Plato contests that there are at least three clearly defined and separate parts of the soul. The three parts consist of desire, reason, and spirit. Each of these aspects of the souls has a function and a virtue, and it is when theses three parts act in harmony that a person behaves in a just manner. This assertion is in response to Glaucon, who claims
When a person plans or wants to do something, he or she has a motivation for that specific thing. In other words, when a person does something, that person has a reason why he or she should do that thing. Not always there is a reason to do something, but sometimes may be many reasons that are backing a person to take those actions to do it. This happens not only to humans, or living organisms, but also in nonliving organisms. An example is when a rock which had bounced after it hit the floor while
are then used to save other people’s lives. For example if a person doesn't have an arm then they could get an arm from an unwind. If someone is missing an organ then they could get one from an unwind. Many people may say or think if you unwind a person you are killing the person. However the government of this society says that they are still alive but just in a different way. Unwinding is not a good concept for many reasons. Some reasons is that there will be less jobs. If there are only good people
Foley's first person perspective argument. Adam Elga calls the second the right reasons view (Elga, 2007 pg. 485). Kelly pursues the latter, and does not go further than agreeing with Foley that we should only view these disputes with a first person perspective. I will show that Kelly's response to the question of epistemic significance of peer disagreement is not compelling. In my explanation of Kelly's argument, I will show that it is contradictory of him to assert the first persons perspective and
are those of a person with good intentions despite starting out as a ‘bad guy’. In my first paragraph I will be stating reasons on why guy Montag should be considered a good guy or a hero. In the second paragraph I will state why his actions and thoughts do not make him a bad person. Lastly, I will state why Montag's actions and thoughts make him a good person. In this paragraph I will be stating a couple reasons why Montag should be considered a ‘good guy’ or a hero. My first reason is when Montag
directly responds to ones moral behavior. Therefore an immoral person would be moral if they wish to become happy. The already happy person, According to Plato, is the just person. He describes this with a sort of chart. If “X’ is happy, then “X” is just and if “X” is just, then “X” is happy. Plato goes further into detail by dividing the human soul into three Meros, or parts: Logos (reason), Thumos (spirit/emotion) and Eros (appetite). Reason is given the greatest value, while Emotion and especially
ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between
attention for the claim of the reason evidences to have courage for doing that character purposes to find a way of that character reason is. My claim is that reader’s claim is that character is having fun and enjoying being invisible and people are struggling to see that invisible man without being invisible as a person. To find your way of what that reason is to understand my claim to be a good person and not be a bad person of doing the right thing. For this reason that my supported claim will
linked to attitude. Stubbornness is emotional attitude, where a person can feel emotions that lead to mainly anger; procrastination and success are mental attitude,
1. There are a few reasons that there could be a gap between the knowledge of ethics and being an ethical person. A person may not incorporate the ethical theories that they have learned into their lives, they may choose to be unethical, they may follow a code of ethics that it morally corrupt, or they might have psychological problems. We can be educated and knowledgeable in something, but not incorporate that subject or theory into our day to day lives. Sometimes it is because it conflicts with
normative debate still holds a relevant position in the moral undercurrent of society – it is dispersed through legal, political, military and medical activity, in relationships and familial function. It is for this reason, that Immanuel Kant examined a similar issue in “Pure Practical Reason and the Moral Law,” and that it still makes for interesting philosophical discussion. Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the
unrestrained, vicious and animal-like. A virtuous person is someone who continuously does the right thing, their intellect and desires are perfectly aligned. A self-restrained person also does the right thing, however, unlike the virtuous person, their desires contradict their intellect. This type of person has an internal battle in their soul. They know what the right thing to do is, but they don’t always want to do it. Dorothy Day, is an example of a person who lived a virtuous life. She spent her life
For this paper Goethe’s, Faust will be compare and contrast with Kant’s, “Foundations of the metaphysics of Morals” and the relationship between human reason and emotion will be examined. Faust from Goethe is considered one of the greatest dramatic poems, and is divided in two parts; in the first half he uses reason and for the second part he uses passion. Even knowing that the history is based on a medieval man or medieval legend who sold his soul to the devil, we actually can say or treat this
case it would be a person and the wrong reasons that they are using technology for. Second, is that the use of technology has to be done over many different times. The wrong reasons for using this technology can lead to using it too much and then leading to using an author’s work without giving any credit to the author, attaching others by using social media, email and text message, and looking at things that should not be viewed. Overtime this use of technology for the wrong reasons may end up ruining