Personhood, Rationality and Morality According to Parfit - Essay Example

Topic: The Sorites paradox suggests that certain terms, like ‘heap’, ‘bald’, ‘tall’, etc. are vague, that there are instances where we cannot say with certainty whether or not the term applies. Parfit argues that similar considerations (the spectrum cases) show that ‘personal identity’ is likewise vague. Is his argument convincing? The rational self and its personal identity are perceptible and what ever is deemed imperceptible under the logic of mathematics sustain moral significance. But must description of persons such as ‘heap’, ‘bald’, ‘tall’ and the like which pertains to ‘personal identity’ be considered vague? Before substantial critique could be raised on this claim, let us first reexamine the Parfit’s theory of personal identity within a continuum of time. Parfit (1984) said that a person is undertaking his perfection within the spatio-temporal physical reality. The self, bearing an identity, is in a continuous trajectory in space and time. Like a butterfly that evolve and transform from egg to caterpillar to its fullness, a person also undergo the process of developmental stages from fetus to infancy, childhood, adulthood to perfection of self. Such developmental stages do not only focus on the mental development but also of one’s relation and responses to empirical reality. Parfit (1984) however supposed that ‘personal identity’ over time is a progression of self. It contends that although a person is made up of ‘different molecules, but it has identical physical structures and identical psychological states.’ Parfit (1984) theorized that ‘personal identity’ has ‘psychological identity over time’ with certain ‘psychological overlapping chains of connectedness’ in relation to others, often with right causes although it has not undertaken a branching form. That ‘cause’ could either be normal, wide or any version of cause. Normal cause refer to which people tend to normally maintain in memory while wide cause refer to that which is reliant to the memory of people (Parfit, 1984; Parfit, 1982, Parfit, 1971). Those other any version of cause could be those that transpire to maintain someone’s memory under philosophical inquisition. Parfit (1984) further theorized that the reductionist perception of ‘personal identity’ is merely a repository of particular facts that are describable which is bereft or ‘without either the assumption of person’s ‘personal identity’ or claim that their experience of life clearly belongs to itself. The non-reductionist perception contends that the ego or id is purely a mental entity which is different from its physical form or body. However, a person is not a mind disconnected from its body. Within the continuum of time, there is continuity, factuality, oneness, and non-divisiveness of the physical and psychological aspect of a person. The persona is therefore a physical being with inherent qualities, behaviors, rationality, decisiveness, and thoughts that direct its actions, roles, behaviors, and determines how to relate with others. Considering all these, let us refresh back again the question: is personal identity really vague? From Parfit theory, ‘personal identity’ is vague because the self could be self-denying. Such meant that he perceived of a self that do not affirms the relationship of interrelation of mind and body; of thoughts and physical actuation or behavior; and of reason and morality. As such, a denying self could not ascertain baldness even if the description is ‘he is bald’; can’t affirm beauty even if the lady is exuding magnificent gorgeousness; and, can’t confirm that ‘blue and red combined’ can produce color violet. Is there some significance or value in self-denying the attributes possessed by a person and thus, alter the substantial meaning of self whilst in the continuous process of perfection? What can make of self that is self-defeating its own? What is so odd with a self that is trying to be ascetic to its own reason or frugal to its own existence, and is defying the oneness of ‘self and reason’ by glorifying the ideation that a person cannot be certain of its own personal identity? By raising these questions, this researcher is expressing disagreement about the vagueness, ambiguity, indistinctness and elusiveness of certainty about self and its identity. While there is agreement to Parfit’s concept about the absence of masquerading and dividing distinction of persons’ mind and body (that constitute its identity), however, there is a need to express an opinion that Parfit’s basic requisite in determining PI is unnecessarily demanding, confusing, and have resulted to the combination of a limited number of requisites that can lead us astray in understanding satisfactorily the self and its ‘personal identity’ within social and ethical criterion. Due to entailing confusion of a self that is bereft of certainty, it impaired our understanding of an identity within the lens of ethical imperatives and the “reasonable consequences” of self’s thoughts, actions, and behaviors. It should be emphasized first that a self, or any self for that matter, has its own distinct personal identity. A person within a continuum of time is the same person and same identity with very same immaterial soul. The physical aspect may vary depending on style, influence, culture, customs, and national origin, but the fact remains that it’s a thinking being with a living material body within space and time. There maybe gradual changes in the physical aspect too due to aging, but the genetic composition, their characteristics, their behaviors, and thoughts made up their identity. For instance, an American is a person whose identity can be perceived by the color of their skin, their language, their hair, their passion for freedom, liberty and expression. They may acquire knowledge from other nation’s culture, beliefs, practices and systems, but they can interpret this knowledge from their inherent perception molded by confluence of sociological factors that shape a human being’s personal identity. Under the theory of objectivism, the self cannot negate its identity. Ayn Rand (1993), a post-modern feminist philosopher argued that a self is a reality and a person is a being of reason. Thus, as a reality, the self is a self (Rand, 1993). A is A. No ambiguity; an objectivist view (Rand, 1993). A person is a rational being and his means of acquiring knowledge is his means for survival (Rand, 1993). However, Rand reasoned that the self, as a being of reason, rely on choices as a ‘volitional consciousness’ (Rand, 1993). She forwarded the idea that what is commonly understood as soul or spirit is consciousness, otherwise known as 'free will (Rand, 1993). It is the mind's freedom to think or not to think which served as measure of one’s manifestation of his/her existence and personal identity (Rand, 1993). Objectivism, as a positivist position rejects any form of determinism—a psychological construct that a person is a victim of forces beyond his control and thus render him incapable to ascertain his personal identity, his sense of reason and his rational attributes (Rand, 1993). The infinite capacity of a person is to perpetually perfect itself objectively and based on contextual realities. Rand (1993) explicated that reason is man's sole proper judge of values and the compass to action. As a rational being, his reason, purpose, self-esteem for the achievement of his happiness is the primordial moral purpose of his life (Rand, 1993). It’s through this objectivist precept that a person, as a thinking and as a self unites itself to accomplish his purpose (Rand, 1993). It’s this perpetual sense of purposiveness that constitutes his/her personal identity. It also rejects any form of altruism that can sacrifice the identity of self to the mindless control of the brutes (Rand, 1993). Even in the exercise of politics and ethics, its reason that dictates his actions, behaviors, thoughts and realities. As such, the self refused to be condemned as denigrate of unreason. His identity is a result of what he thinks and perceived. Thus, Descartes once expressed “I think, therefore I am.” No self-denial and ambiguity about what have composed the substantial meaning of self. It is in this import that Davidson (2008) criticized Parfit’s concept of self and personality identity too. Davidson (2008) contended that governments are justified in addressing the potential of manmade or stimulated climate damages on the basis of youths bodily integrity and personal property. Davidson (2008), an ecologist, explained that even though future generations' entitlements to property came from present entitlements, however the principle of self-ownership mandate elder’s generation to take 'reasonable care' of future labor. Second, Parfit's non-identity problems offer no satisfactory solution due to absence of equilibrium between theory and intuitions as precautionary way of, say, dealing with climate damage (Davidson, 2008). Further, with confusing concept of ‘self-denial’ that is integrated as a construct of personality identity, Roberts (2007) pointed that it’s a treacherous reasoning process because it will be difficult to determine or detect errors due to ambivalence and ambiguity in the probability assessments of alternates between the two. It’s technically fallacious and harmful in itself. Others were very simplistic in their view of self and personal identity. Scientists prefer to be more accurate in their understanding of personality in relation to the developmental stages of human beings. From a fetus, a child is born to parents from certain nationalities. If both parents are Americans, the national identity of a child will not be sourced from the continuum of his memory but by the fact that his blood and genetic make-ups came from American parents. Ergo, the personal identity of the child, if based on nationality, is also American. If the child is born to parents with different nationalities, the child’s national identity is either of the national identities of the parents, e.g. Asian and American. Biologists have also their measures of personal identities. This is through biometrics. The height, weight, fingerprints, photographs of faces, genealogy, health and educational records are documentary evidences in determining the personality identities of persons. In civil and criminal cases, these are also used by forensics and medical experts to maintain certainty of the identity of the persons and those in the penology. Hence, there are difficulties in denying and hiding information about the identity of a person unless he or she will undergo cosmetic surgery to change the skin, face, hair and body form. However, albeit possible changes in the physical attributes, the blood type and its genetic make-up will still bare the truth about the person and its identity. Medical and civil registry records will still reveal the hidden self following surgical operations for physical reengineering. This can be evident amongst gays and lesbians or to those artists of exceeding vanity. For instance, the real Michael Jackson was black. Due to apartheid and extreme discrimination in the music industry in his time, he altered the color of his skin by taking whitening pill. But despite these physical changes, people are still able to recognize him by his music genre, dancing styles, and from his medical and civil registry records. Scientists explained that differences of persons, whether in extraversion–introversion, are resolved by heredity. This is also true to the rational capacity of human beings based on how the central nervous system works. They pointed that information is transmitted or acquired by perception through the senses which is controlled in a neural brain that has that inhibitory cortical system—thus, facilitating or inhibiting a person’s behavioral and cognitive capacities. This is the reason why a person’s identity is known by how other’s described the behavioral pattern of a person. It was contended that extraverts possess strong inhibitory processes and weak excitatory system. The ‘strong’ nervous system stimulates them. When the brain is slow and weak to react to stimuli, such meant that there is a need to experience a stronger sensory stimulation. Thus, extraverts got excitement from the environment while introverts got strong excitory and weak inhibitory systems. Neurologists discussed that although the nervous systems are ‘weak’, but their brains react quickly to strong stimuli. So they can tolerate only relatively small amounts of stimulation. This underlying physiological make ups of every person is among the many scientific reasons in clearly understanding the theory of self and its personal identities albeit inherent differences in the reticular activating system (ARAS) in every person. But even as we considered the significance of mind in determining the identity of persons, there are other experts who professed that mind and memory is insignificant for personal identity. This is because for them the self and its identity still exist even if the person sleep or in coma. The self cannot be obliterated in these states (Parfit, 1984). In conclusion, Parfit’s (1984) theory of personality identity within a continuum of time is agreeable and that it exists as a psychological and physical reality. The self bear an identity in a continuous trajectory of space and time. It is also agreeable to note that ‘personal identity’ has ‘psychological identity over time’ with certain ‘psychological overlapping chains of connectedness’ in relation to others, often with right causes although it has not undertaken a branching form. But it is much preferable that a person, as a thinking or rational being, be perceived as a being constantly analyzing his reality and is regularly trying hard to ascertain the transformation of self which is in a progression to perfection. The self is not a self-denying being and is constantly seeking meaning to substantiate the purpose of one’s existence. As such the self, as a rational being, has ethical and moral imperatives to adapt in relation to his self, to his community, to environment and to his beliefs of the existence of a Higher Being. This refines his interrelationship with other identities with space and time. The self therefore is an affirming being and must opt at all times to side with truth. This is significant for the abnegation of falsehoods, ambiguity, uncertainty, skepticism, denials, and indecisiveness that can cause darkness to a persons’ life. The self, in the continuing quest for better personal identity needs to appreciate the values of truth, honesty, and facticity to enjoy one’s existence. References Parfit, D. A. The Importance of Self-Identity, The Journal of Philosophy, 1971, vol. 68, No. 20, 683-90 Parfit, D. A. Personal Identity and Rationality, Synthese, 1982, vol. 53, 227-41 Parfit, Derek A. Reasons and Persons, Oxford University Press; revised reprint, Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) Parfit, D. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1984, pp. 560. Rand, A. The Atlas Shrugged. Plume, The Penguin Group, England, 1993, pp. 3-527. Davidson, M. Wrongful Harm to Future Generations: The Case of Climate Change, Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 17(4), pages 471-488, November. Mulgan, T. Future People: A Moderate Consequentialist Account of our Obligations to Future Generations, OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, 2008. Roberts, M. A., The Non-identity Fallacy: Harm, Probability and Another Look at Parfit's Depletion Example, Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, 2007, vol. 19(03), pages 267-311, September. Read More