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
    Reasons cannot explain actions by causing them — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Reasons cannot explain actions by causing them

    CausationMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Causes and effects must be logically distinct from each other (Hume's requirement on causality)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reasons and the actions they explain bear a quasi-logical connection to each other by virtue of the rationalizing relation between them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Philosophy of Language
    1 linked

    Related

    Causes and effects must be logically distinct from each other (Hume's requiremen...Reasons and the actions they explain bear a quasi-logical connection to each oth...

    Similar

    If reasons explain actions, they do so by causing those actions90%Reasons cannot be causes of actions.87%Non-causal theories of action explanation are inadequate because reaso...83%It does not follow from reasons being necessary for action-explanation...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    It is useful to view Davidson’s attack against psychophysical laws in light of an argument, in vogue in the 1950s and 1960s, against the claim that reasons are causes of the actions they explain. This argument was referred to as the “Logical Connection Argument” (see Stoutland 1970). According to this argument, reasons cannot be held to explain actions by causing them because (1) causes and effects must be logically distinct from each other (one of Hume’s requirements on causality) but (2) reaso
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit