What justifies our holding a person morally responsible for some past action? Why am I justified in having a special prudential concern for some future persons and not others? Why do many of us think that maximizing the good within a single life is perfectly acceptable, but maximizing the good across lives is wrong? In these and other normative questions, it looks like any answer we come up with will have to make an essential reference to personal identity. So, for (...) instance, it seems we are justified in holding X responsible for some past action only if X is identical to the person who performed that action. Further, it seems I am justified in my special concern for some future person only if he will be me. Finally, many of us think that while maximization within a life affects only one person, a metaphysical unity, maximization across lives affects many different, metaphysically distinct, persons, and so the latter is wrong insofar as it ignores this fundamental separateness of persons. (shrink)

It is usually suggested that the rational self-interest for our future is justified only if we accept endurance theory of personal persistence. This suggestion has been sometimes used to strengthen the plausibility of endurantism over perdurantism, which seemingly does not justify this type of interest. Contrary to the widespread assumption I argue that rational self-interest in some circumstances could be problematic not only for perdurantism but for endurantism as well. The second part of the paper deals with the perdurantistic and (...) endurantistic possibilities to face this common challenge of rational self-interest. (shrink)