Compose a 2000 words essay on Parfit's, the Reductionist and Moral Commitment Argument. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... In this case, if Parfit’s view is correct t

Compose a 2000 words essay on Parfit's, the Reductionist and Moral Commitment Argument. Needs to be plagiarism free!

In this case, if Parfit’s view is correct then many individuals have a false belief concerning personal identity. Additionally, since a good number of individual’s views concerning morality rely on their view on personal identity, individuals should also have to change their own believes concerning morality. In this regard, Parfits argue out that, in most situations, changes of this kind show out an improvement over an individual’s former belief and is in consistence with an individual’s moral judgment. One perceives Parfit argument to be a threat to the moral judgment that is considered. Specifically, it is a judgment undermining the substantial moral commitment notion. This paper explores Parfit’s argument, which says that it is consistent to say claim that the existence of a person is consisted in the existence of the body and brain, and a number of mental and physical events and at the same time the person's existence is different from this. This paper also gives out the nation analogy in support of this argument. As stated in his book, Parfit believes that whatever matters for deliberation about rationality and morality is not personal identity but connectedness or psychological continuity. ...

Because of the degree of psychological connectedness and continuity, the application of moral commitment will equally be demonstrated in degrees. Whenever the psychological continuity degree changes to a great magnitude in a life, one may no longer be held responsible of their prior commitments. One may say that following the view of Parfit moral commitment should be proportioned to Relatedness degrees. In his argument, Parfit uses one example in promises. When one is Non-Reductionist he takes personal identity as whatever matters in consideration of morals. As personal identity is a nothing affair, it appears that an individual’s personal experience would extend on parts of his life. This means that, if one takes personal identity as whatever matters, it appears that whenever one makes promises while he is still young, he is morally expected to uphold the promise his old age. This would be considered true even though one could have a weak psychology in relation to his youth. Despite this, concerning the view of parfit, one’s responsibility is proportional to the psychological continuity degree and connectedness. Having this view, one is not bound to uphold the already made commitments especially when he was young. One may think and treat specific aspects in his past and future as selves that are different, instead of being parts that are equal in his life. Just like someone else could not commit another individual to something, equally a former self could not be in a position, to make commitments on one’s part. Indeed Parfit argues that when one considers a commitment, the personal identity fact appears to enter twice.