Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Non-causal theories of action explanation are inadequate ... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Non-causal theories of action explanation are inadequate because reasons must cause actions in order to explain them

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Davidson's 'Actions, Reasons, and Causes' demonstrates that only causal relations distinguish genuine reasons from mere rationalizations post-hoc.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-causal accounts like Anscombe's teleological explanation cannot distinguish deviant causal chains from genuine intentional action without smuggling in causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If two agents share identical beliefs and desires but only one acts, the explanatory difference must be a causal difference, not a normative or logical one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mele's work on mental causation shows that counterfactual dependence of action on reasons is only explicable if reasons are causally efficacious.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-causal theories like von Wright's practical syllogism collapse the distinction between understanding why an agent acted and predicting what a rational agent should do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The causal argument against non-causal theories is intended to show that reasons explain actions by causing them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If reasons explain actions, they do so by causing those actions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindCausation

    Related

    Davidson's 'Actions, Reasons, and Causes' demonstrates that only causal relation...If reasons explain actions, they do so by causing those actionsIf two agents share identical beliefs and desires but only one acts, the explana...Mele's work on mental causation shows that counterfactual dependence of action o...
    +3 moreShow less
    Non-causal accounts like Anscombe's teleological explanation cannot distinguish ...Non-causal theories like von Wright's practical syllogism collapse the distincti...The causal argument against non-causal theories is intended to show that reasons...

    Similar

    The causal argument against non-causal theories is intended to show th...91%Purposive explanations of actions are constitutive and not causal in c...86%If reasons explain actions, they do so by causing those actions85%Purposive (reason) explanations are not species of causal explanation.85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    What exactly does this argument show? It is intended to tell against non-causal theories of action, which deny that reasons explain actions by causing them. There have been sophisticated attempts, on the behalf of non-causal theories of action explanation, to respond to this challenge (von Wright 1971; Wilson 1985; Ginet 1995; for a good overview, see Stoutland 1976; and see related discussion in 6.3.) However, assuming the argument is successful, while it does establish mental efficacy of a k
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit