Final Answer:
Parfit's attitude towards personal identity seems most plausible in the case of "fission," where a person splits into two separate individuals. However, he shouldn't solely rely on this case to draw his general conclusion due to the complexities and diverse nature of personal identity scenarios.
Step-by-step explanation:
Parfit's perspective on personal identity finds support in the case of fission, where one person divides into two separate individuals with equal claims to being the original. This scenario challenges traditional notions of identity tied to continuous psychological connectedness or bodily continuity. However, Parfit's argument based on fission shouldn't be the sole foundation for his general conclusion because personal identity involves multifaceted instances that go beyond the fission case.
In the case of fission, Parfit highlights the intricacies of identity as two individuals emerge, each seemingly connected to the original person but equally valid in claiming identity. Yet, personal identity involves various scenarios beyond fission, such as fusion, gradual change, or cases with differing psychological or bodily connections, where his conclusions might not hold the same weight. Parfit's argument requires a broader consideration of diverse scenarios to build a comprehensive view of personal identity.
Parfit's approach towards personal identity through the lens of fission provides a thought-provoking illustration, but it's not exhaustive enough to encompass the entirety of personal identity. Hence, to draw a more comprehensive and general conclusion, Parfit should consider and address a wider array of identity scenarios that capture the complexity and diversity inherent in personal identity debates.