Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Humean contingency of causal relations applies to causal relata, not to the grounding relation between a property and its causal profile.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If grounding relations are non-contingent, they need justification distinct from causation, but no principled difference between them is evident.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Properties could have had different causal profiles in different possible worlds, suggesting grounding relations are equally Humean-contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction assumes grounding is non-empirical while causation is, but both seem equally open to empirical discovery and modal variation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Causal relations between distinct events are contingent (Hume showed this), but properties have their causal profiles essentially or necessarily.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding is a metaphysical relation of constitution, unlike causation between separate relata, so it needn't obey Humean contingency constraints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A property's identity just is its causal profile—changing the profile changes the property, making the connection non-contingent by necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42