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
    The distinction between causes and background conditions ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The distinction between causes and background conditions tracks the distinction between abnormal and normal conditions, not merely counterfactual dependence.

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In McGrath's case, both Byron's and Chris's failures are equally counterfactually relevant to the plant's death, yet only Byron's failure is judged a cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The only relevant difference between Byron and Chris is that Byron had a promise-based obligation, making his failure abnormal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In Hitchcock and Knobe's case, both Adriel and Piper equally contributed to the shortage, yet only Piper's action is judged a cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual theories can accommodate normative asymmetries by restricting the relevant antecedent to the actual causal history, as Lewis's 'influence' account does.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Byron/Chris asymmetry reflects differences in the causal structure of obligations—Byron's promise creates a causal power Chris lacks—not a separate normative filter on causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, normality-based accounts conflate the metaphysics of causation with pragmatics of causal explanation, a distinction Hitchcock himself defends in separating causation from causal relevance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hart and Honoré's original abnormality criterion was explicitly tied to human agency and voluntary intervention, not to statistical or normative deviance in general.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hitchcock and Knobe's pen-shortage case involves a normative violation by Piper, but conflating legal permission with causal abnormality smuggles deontic facts into ontological causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If normative status were constitutive of causation rather than explanatory salience, causal facts would vary across legal jurisdictions—a result that reductionist metaphysicians like Menzies and Price reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Causation

    Related

    Counterfactual theories can accommodate normative asymmetries by restricting the...Hart and Honoré's original abnormality criterion was explicitly tied to human ag...Hitchcock and Knobe's pen-shortage case involves a normative violation by Piper,...If normative status were constitutive of causation rather than explanatory salie...
    +6 moreShow less
    In Hitchcock and Knobe's case, both Adriel and Piper equally contributed to the ...In McGrath's case, both Byron's and Chris's failures are equally counterfactuall...The Byron/Chris asymmetry reflects differences in the causal structure of obliga...The only relevant difference between Adriel and Piper is that Adriel was permitt...The only relevant difference between Byron and Chris is that Byron had a promise...Therefore, normality-based accounts conflate the metaphysics of causation with p...

    Similar

    Abnormal or deviant conditions count as causes, while normal or defaul...88%If causes were sufficient conditions, something insufficient for an ef...78%A good causal condition must align with intuitions about what causes d...77%Galen holds that understanding preceding and antecedent causes constit...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: causation-metaphysics
    View source passageHide passage
    Hart and Honoré (1959 [1985]) suggest that conditions which are normal, or default, are background conditions; whereas those which are abnormal, or deviant, are causes. This distinction between normal, default, or inertial conditions and abnormal, deviant, or non-inertial causes has been appearing with increasing regularity in the recent literature. For instance, McGrath (2005) presents the following vignette: Abigail goes on vacation and asks her neighbor, Byron, to water her plant. Byron promi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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