RÉSUMÉ: L’«argument de la mort» de David Mackie prétend montrer que le critère psychologique de l’identité personnelle ne peut pas être adéquat, vu que les cadavres sont des gens et ne sont pourtant pas dotés de psychologie. Mackie soutient que les tenants du critère psychologique ne peuvent pas se contenter d’affirmer que le terme «personne» désigne tout simplement quelque chose qui a nécessairement des capacités psychologiques, car ce serait là, prétend-il, commettre une pétition de principe à l’encontre de sa position. (...) Et il prétend, de plus, que le langage ordinaire corrobore sa façon de voir. Je soutiens, cependant, que cet appui du langage ordinaire n’est guère concluant, et que la théorie psychologique a les ressources nécessaires pour rendre compte du discours sur les personnes mortes. (shrink)

I have argued elsewhere that the psychological criterion of personalidentity entails that a person is not an object, but a series ofpsychological events. As this is somewhat counter-intuitive,I consider whether the psychological theorist can argue that a person, while not a substance, exists in a way that is akin to theway that substances exist. I develop ten criteria that such a`quasi-substance' should meet, and I argue that a reasonablecase can be made to show that the psychological theorist's conception of a (...) person meets these criteria. (shrink)

The standard version of the psychological criterion or theory of personal identity takes it that psychological connectedness is not necessary for personal identity, or for what matters in survival. That is, a future person can be you, and/or have what matters in survival for you, even though there is no psychological connectedness between you and that future person. David Lewis, however, holds that psychological connectedness is necessary to both identity and what matters (which he takes to coincide). This entails, Lewis (...) acknowledges, that if a human body were to live longer than connectedness lasts, then that body would ‘embody’ or ‘constitute’ a different person later on than it did to begin with. Moreover, Lewis accepts, a body may embody more than one person at any one time. Lewis claims that this can be reconciled to some degree with common sense if we count by person stages rather than by persons. I show, though, that Lewis' view cannot be salvaged in this way, and, moreover, that it leads to further absurdities. I conclude that as an account of identity and of what matters in survival, it is highly implausible, and most unsatisfactory. (shrink)