Advertisement

Causing in Some Way

  • David-Hillel Ruben
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter will attempt to show that there are no particulars that are causings, no acts or events of causing. As in the chapters on trying, it is important to show (a) some of the negative consequences of introducing causing-particulars; (b) that there is no need to reify causings in that way; and (c) that there is an alternative to their introduction.

There is however one adverbial modification that needs special examination: ‘with instrument i’. Does (1) ‘P openedt the door with a crowbar’ imply (2) ‘P caused the door to openi with a crowbar’? If so, it seems that (2) attributes ‘with a crowbar’ either to an openingi or to a causing. What other options might there be? The second option would give us causing particulars.

According to a rule of Terence Parsons’, the first option is ruled out. Instrumentals must be attributed to actions, not events, and so, extrapolating this to the case of causing something, one seems to need an act of causing to which the instrumental could be attributed. I look at an ‘ingenious’ solution due to Maria Alvarez that accepts that rule, but would still not require any quantification over causings. I then consider a reply to her by Erasmus Mayr that shows that her solution will not work. I end by showing how one-particularism solves the problem, but at the cost of denying Parsons’ rule.

Bibliography

  1. Alvarez, Maria. 1999. Actions and Events: Some Semantical Considerations. Ratio, new series XII (3): 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, Maria, and John Hyman. 1998. Agents and Their Actions. Philosophy 73: 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1981. Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, Kent. 1980. Actions are Not Events. Mind 89 (353): 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, Jonathan. 1988. Adverb-Dropping Inferences and the Lemmon Criterion. In Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed. Ernest LePore and Brian McLaughlin, 193–206. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, Donald. 2004. Problems in the Explanation of Action. In Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Morreall, John. 1976. The Nonsynonymy of Kill and Cause to Die. Linguistic Inquiry 7 (3): 516–518.Google Scholar
  9. Quine, W.V.O. 1961. On What There Is. In From A Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  10. Stoecker, Ralf. 1993. Reasons, Actions, and their Relationship. In Reflecting Davidson, ed. Ralf Stoecker, 265–286. Berlin: De Gruyter. Reprinted, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vendler, Zeno. 1962. Effects, Results and Consequences. In Analytical Philosophy, ed. R.J. Butler, 1–15. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David-Hillel Ruben
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations