Book · 1984
Reasons and Persons
by Derek Parfit
A philosopher argues the person you'll be in thirty years has no more claim on your life than a stranger, then asks why that shouldn't terrify you.
What does Reddit think of Reasons and Persons?
Reasons and Persons turns up in r/askphilosophy the way syllabi do: as a canon entry, not a hot take. The ↑124 and ↑99 comments both list it inside broader essential-reading stacks, next to Bernard Williams and John McDowell, treated as infrastructure rather than a pick worth arguing over. Where the book gets discussed on its own terms, the argument is specific. The ↑64 comment borrows Parfit's term directly, calling egoism 'self-effacing' because it instructs its own followers to stop being egoists, using the book as a working tool rather than a reference. The ↑32 comment does the same with personal identity, walking through the claim that psychological continuity is what matters, then following it toward the thought experiment that makes the argument uncomfortable. Twenty-eight recognized mentions across seven years, mostly on r/askphilosophy, sentiment mixed rather than uniformly warm. Nobody here is selling it. They're just using it.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Canon status inside 'essential reading' stacks, not a standalone pick
- · The 'self-effacing' argument against egoism, cited by name
- · Personal identity as psychological continuity, argued through thought experiments
- · r/askphilosophy as the almost-exclusive venue
Common praise
- + The ↑64 comment borrows Parfit's own term, 'self-effacing,' to explain why egoism defeats itself, and the term does real argumentative work rather than sitting there as jargon.
- + The ↑32 comment walks through the personal-identity argument in enough detail to make the claim, not just cite the title.
Common criticism
- − It mostly shows up as one name in a longer syllabus (↑124, ↑99), never singled out as the one to start with.
Who it's for
The personal-identity argument is the entry point, not the whole book, and the ↑32 comment walks through it directly: psychological continuity over physical continuity, followed to its uncomfortable conclusion. Come for that if egoism's contradictions interest you too, per the ↑64 comment's 'self-effacing' framing. Otherwise expect to meet this title mostly as scenery, one line in r/askphilosophy's reading lists (↑124, ↑99) that also cite Williams, McDowell, and Quine in the same breath.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Reasons and Persons?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“You're going to have a long list. * *Truth and Truthfulness*, Bernard Williams * *Shame and Necessity*, Bernard Williams * *Word and Object*, W.V.O. Quine * *Mind and World*, John McDowell * *Reasons and Persons*, Derek Parfit * *Sense and Sensibilia*, J.L. Austin * *Culture and Value*, Ludwig Witt…
“Here's a few: John McDowell, *Mind and World* Robert Brandom *Making it Explicit* Michael Thompson *Life and Action* Charles Taylor *Sources of the Self* Richard Rorty *Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature* Irad Kimhi *Thinking and Being* Alasdair MacIntyre *After Virtue* Derek Parfit *Reason…
“I feel like some of the most powerful arguments against egoism are the ones which suggest that it's not in your interests to be an egoist. (To borrow a term from Parfit's *Reasons and Persons*: egoism is "self-effacing", in that it commands its followers to *stop* following it.) There are basicall…
“This post spells out the most cited works in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (circa 2020), as well as their date of publication: That yields a decent rule of thumb guide to the most important work in th…
“I’m not sure you read my reply. You seem to just be insisting that there haven’t been major breakthroughs in moral philosophy and also that in order for ethics to be legitimately objective it must somehow be similar to this completely different area on inquiry. Here are some major breakthroughs in…
“This is a widely discussed question in philosophy, and the answer depends on your view of what determines personal identity. In Reasons and Persons, Derik Parfit argues that psychological continuity is what matters for personal identity. Based on this, he concludes that if your body was destroyed a…
“Here are some suggestions: Anything by Plato (The collection "Five Dialogues" would be a particularly good place to start) *Existentialism is a Humanism* by Jean-Paul Sartre (existentialism, very short) *Problems of Philosophy* by Bertrand Russell (analytic tradition) *The Life You Can Save*…
“It’s an old discussion—goes back to antiquity (e.g., Seneca), and Bacon, and many others. There is a fairly common view that death itself can’t be bad, but dying is often quite bad. The ethical upshot of that is pretty obvious: making dying less bad is good. There are other arguments for the badness…
“Derek Parfit’s *Reasons and Persons* (1984) practically exemplifies your criteria, as does his *On What Matters,* (2011, 2017), which is meant as a follow-up to *R&P*, and reflects nearly 3 decades of corresponding with the likes of Thomas Nagel and T.M. Scanlon (to name a few), and includes revised…
“You could easily read Parfit without reading anything else first. He's incredibly clear. Sometimes painfully so! I love Parfit, and his work is very sophisticated, but he writes like he's talking to a bright twelve-year-old. Which could be a good thing! I'd also, as far as Reasons and Persons goes, …
“> I have wondered this for a very long time. For me to spontaneously exist; why would this not be repeated again but with all prior knowledge and identity lost? Who am I even, what constitutes my awareness and persona? Well, first, nobody spontaneously exists. This would be like some kind of *ex ni…
“The statement is an ideological one, and open to critique. Before listing the views of particular philosophers, it's worth unpacking what the statement actually means. In saying "Suicidal people don't want to die, they want their pain to end", the further implication is something like this: "Inste…
“Since nobody seems to have mentioned it yet, the best known modern discussion of this is Derek Parfit’s in *Reasons and Persons*, if you look up Derek Parfit on personal identity - better yet if you read that section of the aforementioned book - he takes you through various thought experimental step…
“As someone without much philosophical education, I found Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons to be particularly clear and enjoyable. His style is simple and well structured, even when he’s handling complex ideas. His thought experiments are stimulating and relatable regardless of your philosophical…
“You should look at Derek Parfit’s work. He discusses game theory quite a bit as a setup for moral questions in Reasons and Persons.
Convinced? Pick up Reasons and Persons
What else does r/askphilosophy read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Reasons and Persons — frequently asked
Is Reasons and Persons hard to read?+
The excerpts don't say directly, but the way it's cited suggests dense, technical philosophy rather than a casual read. r/askphilosophy uses specific terms from it, like 'self-effacing' in the ↑64 comment, the way people cite jargon they've had to work through, not pull-quote a summary of.
What is Reasons and Persons actually about, according to Reddit?+
Personal identity and the limits of self-interest, per the displayed excerpts. The ↑32 comment credits it with the claim that psychological continuity, not physical continuity, is what personal identity depends on. The ↑64 comment cites its argument that egoism is 'self-effacing,' undermining its own followers.
Is Reasons and Persons on any recommended philosophy reading lists?+
Yes, twice in the displayed data. Both the ↑124 and ↑99 r/askphilosophy comments list it alongside Bernard Williams, W.V.O. Quine, and John McDowell as part of broader must-read stacks, not as a standalone suggestion.
Do people recommend Reasons and Persons over other Parfit-adjacent philosophy books?+
Nothing in the displayed excerpts ranks it against anything else Parfit-adjacent. It's cited for particular arguments, self-effacing egoism in the ↑64 comment, psychological continuity in the ↑32 comment, not compared head-to-head with rival texts.