Causation in action (2)

Photo taken by me at the Strassenindustriemuseum-in Ennepetal, Germany

According to Hume, causation (causality) refers to regular connections: The idea of cause excludes the possibility of causes that occur only once. However, in my blog last week we have seen that there are arguments that sustain the view that causes can be one-time, at least when we are talking about actions (as distinguished from physical phenomena). It is a view sustained by Donald Davidson, for instance. But is it possible to explain actions by causes, be it regular causes or one-time causes? This question has been a hot issue during the 1960s to 1980s in analytical philosophy, and maybe later as well. This question was also one of the central themes in my PhD thesis and what follows is a summary of the first part of chapter IV of this thesis. Basically, four different answer to this question have been given. I think that they are still relevant when talking about the causes of actions.

1) According to Hempel, who starts from a Humean concept of causality, the presence of a causal connection implies the presence of one or more general laws: “... the causal explanation implicitly claims that there are general laws – let us say, L₁, L₂, ..., L_r – in virtue of which the occurrence of the causal antecedents mentioned in C₁, C₂, ..., C_k is a sufficient condition of the explanandum event”. Providing a causal explanation supposes that such laws are being used: “[C]ausal explanation is, at least implicitly, deductive-nomological” and “reliance on general laws is essential to a D‑N explanation”, (Hempel, 1965: pp.349, 377) This model is not only valid for the explanation of physical phenomena but also for the explanation of actions. In particular, a general law is necessary for explaining actions with the help of reasons, so Hempel.

2) This is denied by Davidson, who argues that “generalizations connecting reasons and actions are not – and cannot be sharpened into – the kind of law on the basis of which accurate predictions can reliably be made”, but “ignorance of competent predictive laws does not inhibit valid causal explanation”, for “it is an error to think no explanation has been given until a law has been produced”. (Davidson 1980, p. 15-17) Or, as Davidson summarises his own position: “I accept the view that teleological explanation of action differs from explanation in the natural sciences in that laws are not essentially involved in the former but hold that both sorts of explanation can, and often must, involve causal connections” (id., p. xii). Later, Davidson puts it even more emphatically: “[T]here are no strict laws at all on the basis of which we can predict and explain mental phenomena” and this is especially true for the connection between reason and action (id., p. 224-225).

3) One step further is to deny not only that we need general laws for an action explanation but also the causal nature of such an explanation. This is done, for instance, by William Dray: “The goal of [an] explanation [of actions from reasons] is to show that what was done was the thing to have done for the reasons given, rather than merely the thing that is done on such occasions, perhaps in accordance with certain laws. ... [T]here is an element of appraisal of what was done in such explanations; that what we want to know when we ask to have the action explained is in what way it was appropriate” (Dray 1957, p. 124; italics by Dray). In other words, the connection between premises and conclusion in Dray's rational explanation model is not causal but evaluative in nature.

4a) Advocates of the so-called “logical connection argument” (note) have completely different objections against the view that action explanations are causal. According to them, the connection between a reason or intention and an action is not causal but logical. As Charles Taylor puts it, for example: “[W]e could not say that the intention was the causal antecedent of the behaviour. For the two are not contingently connected in the normal way. We are not explaining the behaviour by the ‘law’, other things being equal, intending X is followed by doing X, for this is part of what we mean by ‘intending X’, that, in the absence of interfering factors, it is followed by doing X. I could not be said to intend X if, even with no obstacles or other countervailing factors, I still didn’t do it. Thus my intention is not a causal antecedent of my behaviour” (Taylor 1964, p. 33).
4b) According to Georg Henrik von Wright, the logical connection argument is basically correct. However, so von Wright, that the connection between premisses and conclusion of an action explanation – so the connection between a reason or intention and an action – is logical leaves open the possibility that it is also causal. Nevertheless, von Wright thinks that the logical connection argument is a correct argument against the view that action explanations are causal. This becomes clear when one realizes that the logical connection argument is not about the logical dependence of premises and conclusion – of reason or intention and action – but that in fact it says that the premises and conclusion in an action explanation cannot be determined and verified independent from each other. (von Wright 1971)

These four views are the main answers to the question of whether it is possible to explain actions by causes, be it regular causes or one-time causes. To my mind, von Wrights view is correct, for how could we say that we acted (and not simply physically behaved) if there were not an intention in our action, but then how could we say that we had this intention to perform the action if we didn’t act according to this intention at the moment that all conditions to perform the action involved were met? However, we know the one only by the other.

Note
The term “logical connection argument” has been coined by Frederick Stoutland.