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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Non-causal theories of action explanation are inadequate because reasons must cause actions in order to explain them

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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