anti-Humeian business practices, and other news

I just have to share this gem from today's mail:

(Also, distinction!)

Oh, but, speaking of American Consumers and Travelers, let me tell you about my recent traveling! Last week, I visited Swarthmore for a few days. (The beach is all dug-up!)

It was weird to be on campus again — it felt sort of like a very-vivid dream. But got boring again pretty fast, so I spent most of the time off-campus, hanging out with these people:

There were other people too, but those are the ones who do philosophy.

Anyway, after that I drove up to Vermont to witness some wedding action.
And then I spent a couple of days in Bethesda, Maryland with this lady.
I got back on Friday, and now (well, tomorrow) I'm headed to Israel. Hope this has been informative and entertaining, even if lacking in philosophical content. Keep posting!

Endurantism, Perdurantism, and Moral Philosophy

So I've been thinking a lot recently about this distinction that arises in metaphysics and philosophy of time (and evidently philosophy of identity too, but I don't know so much about that approach) between two positions, which I'll define below (with some help from Wikipedia):

Perdurantism: The perspective that objects (or entities) have distinct temporal parts, and thus one's "identity" is defined as its time-slice at a given moment (another way of cashing this out would be to index one's identity to some time)

Endurantism: The perspective that objects (or entities) are wholly present at every moment in time, and thus one's "identity" may span a set of individual times (again, maybe cashed out by saying that the object at time t1 must be the same as the object at t2, essentially or metaphysically or something).

I have my own views on how philosophy of physics (specifically relativistic space-time physics) ought to impact which one of these positions we take to be more viable, but I've been looking in a different direction recently and am interested in your thoughts. Do you think that perdurantists or endurantists are committed (either de facto or de jure) to certain positions on the value of promises and personal responsibility? For instance, it seems to me that one might reasonably complain that the perdurantist is likely to undervalue both responsibility and promise-making (compared to the endurantist), but I know very little about philosophical work done on morality, so I'm hoping someone more morally/ethically/socially/politically/continentally informed than I am can help me out here?