David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 120 (479):735-760 (2011)
In section 96 of Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit offers his now familiar tripartite distinction among candidates for ‘what matters’: (1) Relation R with its normal cause; (2) R with any reliable cause; (3) R with any cause. He defends option (3). This paper tries to show that there is important ambiguity in this distinction and in Parfit's defence of his position. There is something strange about Parfit's way of dividing up the territory: I argue that those who have followed him in viewing the choice among (1)–(3) as the (or an) important question in thinking about ‘what matters’ are mistaken, and that they bypass what seems to be a more important, even crucial, set of options and considerations. I am less concerned with what he does say than with what he ought to say, given his intuitions and arguments, and the general framework within which he is working. And I am particularly concerned to show that whether or not I am correct about what he is doing with his tripartite distinction, it is a distinction with which we should not be particularly concerned in the analysis either of what matters or of psychological continuity
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
David W. Shoemaker (2007). Personal Identity and Practical Concerns. Mind 116 (462):317-357.
Citations of this work BETA
Alan Sidelle (2009). Conventionalism and the Contingency of Conventions. Noûs 43 (2):224-241.
A. Brueckner & C. T. Buford (2013). Against Psychological Sequentialism. Analysis 73 (1):96-101.
Similar books and articles
Jeremy Allen Byrd (2007). The Perfect Murder: A Philosophical Whodunit. Synthese 157 (1):47 - 58.
Deborah C. Smith (2001). Parfit on Personal Identity. Idealistic Studies 31 (2/3):169-181.
J. Seibt (2002). Fission, Sameness, and Survival: Parfit's Branch Line Argument Revisited. Metaphysica 1 (2):95-134.
Christopher T. Buford (2013). Does Indeterminacy Matter? Theoria 79 (2):155-166.
James Baillie (1993). What Matters in Survival. Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (3):255-61.
Anthony L. Brueckner (1993). Parfit on What Matters in Survival. Philosophical Studies 70 (1):1-22.
Benjamin Kiesewetter (2012). A Dilemma for Parfit's Conception of Normativity. Analysis 72 (3):466-474.
James Baillie (1996). Identity, Relation R, and What Matters: A Challenge to Derek Parfit. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):263-267.
Mark Schroeder (forthcoming). What Matters About Metaethics? In Peter Singer (ed.), Does Anything Really Matter? Responses to Parfit.
Richard Yetter Chappell (forthcoming). Knowing What Matters. In Peter Singer (ed.), Does Anything Really Matter? Parfit on Objectivity. Oxford University Press
Bart Schultz (2014). Go Tell It on the Mountain. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (2):233-251.
Jonny Anomaly (2013). Review of Derek Parfit, On What Matters. [REVIEW] Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (3):358-360.
Added to index2011-11-11
Total downloads61 ( #70,406 of 1,907,694 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #196,519 of 1,907,694 )
How can I increase my downloads?