Taking a Look at Actual Causation

The argument to be made here is known as the first cause argument, which originated in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, and was refined by medieval Muslim philosophers and thinkers. The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. It is based on the law of science known as the Law of Causality, or the Law of Cause and Effect, which says that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. That is to say, whatever begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. Nothing can cause itself to be, because it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence. Therefore, if something is caused to be, then it has not caused itself to be;

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

There is issues with causation though and is questioned whether it is in need of reform.

When we make situational attributions, we are identifying the cause of an action as something

In this paper I discuss both Hume’s and Anscombe’s view on causation. I begin with Hume and his regularity theory; then I move onto Anscombe where I provide a rebuttal of Hume’s regularity theory, and later I explain how Hume would respond to Anscombe’s objection to Hume’s regularity theory.

Common experience and empirical evidence continually verify the causal principle, and falsification has not occurred. These considerations lead Dr. Craig to conclude, “It is somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it [the first premise], for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself, and, as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious.”

Free will is freedom of the mind from causal determination. Many advocates of free will argue the irrelevancy of the law of causality: “Every effect must have a cause; the same cause always produces the same effects.” Since a choice is not an effect, advocates of free will argue that the law of causality is irrelevant; however, it must be recognized that the one’s choices are limited by their heritage and environment. Moreover, a choice is affected by what one desires, which we affirmed were determined by heritage and experience; therefore, we can soundly conclude that one’s choice is determined.

Causal determinism is the concept that preceding causes give rise to everything which exists such that reality could be nothing but what it is. Science depends on this idea as it aims to find generalisations about the conjunction of certain causes and effects and thus hold some power of prediction about their future co-occurrence. However, in human interaction people assume each other to be responsible for their acts and not merely at the whim of causal laws. So the question which troubles philosophers is whether causation dictates entirely the course of human action or whether we as agents possess some free will. I will argue that free will is an inescapable illusion of the mind, something which never did nor ever could exist under

Correlation vs. causation: A relationship between two things does not infer a relationship between the circumstance and end

Extensive research has shown the causes of false confessions can be attributed to a phenomenon known as illusory-causation. Illusory-causation is a phenomenon which happens when, “people attribute unwarranted causality to a stimulus simply because it is more noticeable or salient than other available stimuli.” (Lassiter, 2002) Illusory-causation phenomenon can be seen most notable on how people evaluate legal evidence leading to prejudicial effects. (Lassiter, 2002) Evidence such as, videotaped confessions camera perspectives can vastly influence the jurors judgment. Videotaped confessions are most commonly recorded with the camera focused on the suspect this in turn leads mock juror to judge that the confessions were more voluntary and most likely make them guilty. (Lassiter, 2002)Furthermore, integration techniques also play a role in false confessions such as non-assaultive psychology manipulation. (ct. Kassin & Kichel, 1996),cited in (Lassiter,2002).

In section VIII, Part 1of his influential exploratory book “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, David Hume takes his analysis in another direction to subsequently further examine the controversy concerning what causes mankind’s actions. The dispute between mankind having free will and mankind’s actions being based off of external causes is simply a misunderstanding of definitions, because Hume states that everyone in reality has the same opinion on this matter. To confirm his claims, Hume commences by analyzing why it is probable for mankind to believe there are laws within nature of which control the human body, although the implications of necessary connection and causation originate from observations.

Cause and effect, two mutually dependent actions that happen from revolving decisions being made. Without a cause, effect cannot happen, and if there is a cause then there has to be an effect. Life progresses through time, but moves forward by cause and effect changing life’s routine by constant controversial decisions. Thoughts on who and how those decisions are made lead to the question, “Do we make our own decisions or does fate control them.” This question can be broken down into social class, religion, historical references, and different sources to be analyzed, debated, and contemplated to come to the conclusion that fate does not control the decisions we make.

Defining causation can occasionally be complex and Mill’s Method of Difference has helped us to do this.

Counterfactuals and mechanistic theories present two distinct, although perhaps not incompatible causal theories. In this paper, I will outline them, contrast their basic strengths, and finally aim to argue in favour of a monist mechanistic account, in particular focusing on resolving two general arguments against mechanistic theory - to which the answer is commonly to adopt a pluralistic account.

Act and potency and their distinction are an important and fundamental theory in philosophy. It helps approach questions in metaphysics concerning substance, essence, and causation. In this essay, I will be using this theory of act and potency to show how the four causes and the theory relate to each other. Thus, the four causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause are related to each other and can be explained through the theory and concepts of act and potency.