Abstract
AbstractThis paper explores the prospects of employing a functional approach in order to improve our concept of actual causation. Claims of actual causation play an important role for a variety of purposes. In particular, they are relevant for identifying suitable targets for intervention, and they are relevant for our practices of ascribing responsibility. I argue that this gives rise to thechallenge of purpose. The challenge of purpose arises when different goals demand adjustments of the concept that pull in opposing directions. More specifically, I argue that a common distinction between certain kinds of preempted and preempting factors is difficult to motivate from an interventionist viewpoint. This indicates that an appropriately revised concept of actual causation would not distinguish between these two kinds of factors. From the viewpoint of retributivist responsibility, however, the distinction between preempted and preempting factors sometimes is important, which indicates that the distinction should be retained.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference64 articles.
1. Alicke, M. D., Rose, D., & Bloom, D. (2011). Causation, norm violation, and culpable control. The Journal of Philosophy, 108(12), 670–696.
2. Andreas, H., & Günther, M. (2021). A Ramsey test analysis of causation for causal models. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 587–615.
3. Beckers, S. (2021). Causal sufficiency and actual causation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 50, 1341–1374.
4. Beckers, S., & Vennekens, J. (2018). A principled approach to defining actual causation. Synthese, 195, 835–862.
5. Bennett, J. (1993). Event causation: The counterfactual analysis. In Sosa, Ernest and Tooley, Michael, editors, Causation, pages 217–33. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献