Talk:Reasons and Persons

Not encyclopaedic
As it stands this isn't really an encyclopaedia article. It lacks elements such as also, some references (to reviews / works which discuss it / other related works) would be good.
 * what do other philosophers think of the ideas in the book
 * how was the book recieved
 * who, apart from philosophers, cares about what he says? what influence has he had?
 * how well has the book sold?
 * how has the book been reviewed? by who
 * and so on.

could someone please develop it? Azikala 18:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of the text in the article on the author really belongs here, not there.
 * The Britannica article on "Ethics" refers to this work no less than four times. Apparently it impressed the philosopher author of the article.
 * I intend to try to read the book, before undertaking any editing.--TJ 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No cats
Please add categories.--Mais oui! 12:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No content
The difference between this article and the one on Derek Parfit is night and day. Whereas the Parfit article gives an in-depth and insightful analysis of Parfit's ideas, this article is a dry-as-dust enumeration at a shallow and unsightful level of points arising in Parfit's book. This article in no way complements or adds to the other and serves no useful purpose to those seeking to understand Parfit's views. The two articles should be merged, most easily done simply by deleting this article. Anyone with information to add to the Parfit article should do so there. Whether the Parfit article needs renaming is a good question, I don't have an opinion either way given that Parfit and his book amount to the same subject at the present time. Vaughan Pratt 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An article being badly written is of little consequence - it is the notability that is important. As long as there is little question of notability, it is merely a matter of improving the writing. Richard001 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Publication date?
The Internet doesn't seem to know when this was published. This article is contradictory (the first sentence says 1984, the info box 1986). Googling didn't help me, as evidence for both dates is everywhere. Can anyone rectify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.179.44 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal identity section
I'm hoping someone who's read this book can review the personal identity section. The argument attributed to Parfit looks fallacious to me. I can't see how 'So, if non-reductionism is true ...' follows from the two previous statements. H Remster (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "review the rationality and time section"? That's the section that mentions non-reductionism. If so, I agree, I think "non-reductionism" is a typo for "reductionism" there. But I am not certain, as I have only read sections 3 and 4, not yet section 2. Folding Chair (talk) 25 November 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Description of part 2 of the book is misleading
The article currently claims that the 'Rationality and Time' section of the book argues against Self-Interest theory using a reductionist account of personal identity. But I don't think this is accurate. Parfit explicitly states that his arguments in part 2 do not rely on the account of personal identity which he defends in part 3. Here's a quote from the 'Appeal to Full Relativity' section: "In Part Three I shall defend a view [on personal identity] that, in the relevant respects, follows Hume. And I shall claim that, as Sidgwick suggests, this view supports an argument against the Self‐interest Theory. In the rest of Part Two, my aim is different. I shall continue to challenge the Self‐interest Theory with arguments that do not appeal to any view about the nature of personal identity."

I think a more accurate summary of part 2 would be something like the following: It is possible for someone's present aims to conflict with their long-term self-interest. Any argument that a self-interest theorist uses to label such aims irrational can be turned around and used against the self-interest theorist to label their disregard for other persons irrational. Conversely, any argument that a self-interest theorist uses to justify their selfishness can be turned around and used against the self-interest theorist in favour of 'present-aim theory', which says we should act according to whatever our present aims are. Tobycrisford (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)