How effects depend on their causes , why causal transitivity fails , and why we care about causation

Despite recent efforts to improve on counterfactual theories of causation, failures to explain how effects depend on their causes are still manifest in a variety of cases. In particular, theories that do a decent job explaining cases of causal preemption have problems accounting for cases of causal intransitivity. Moreover, the increasing complexity of the counterfactual accounts makes it difficult to see why the concept of causation would be such a central part of our cognition. In this paper, I propose an account of our causal thinking that not only explains the hitherto puzzling variety of causal judgments, but also makes it intelligible why we would employ such an elusive concept. Sometimes, an event seems to fail as a cause of another exactly because the latter event was independent of – would have occurred without – the former. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 2 But in other cases – cases of redundant causation – one event is a cause of another even though the effect would have occurred without that cause. Despite a recent flood of papers on causation and dependence, no known analysis of the concept of causation gives an adequate account of typical causal intuitions in all these cases: the relation between dependence and causation has remained something of a mystery. In this paper, I try to dissolve the mystery. After some methodological preliminaries, I remind the reader of the important aspects of the problem, briefly discussing a number of cases where our causal intuitions are at odds with various recent attempts to analyze the dependence of effects on causes in terms of counterfactual conditionals. However, the main point of this section is not to criticize, but rather to canvas a variety of common causal intuitions and remind the reader how difficult it is to subsume these intuitions under a unified explanation. In the latter parts of the paper, I propose and elaborate on such an explanation of our causal judgments, one that handles intuitions of both redundant causation and causal intransitivity while making it intelligible why we commonly employ such an elusive concept. Even though the upshot is an account of causal judgment, it strongly suggests a kind of account of the features of reality to which our causal judgments are supposed to correspond: a kind of account of causal facts. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 3 Preliminary methodological note Throughout this paper, I will talk about ‘typical’ or ‘standard’ intuitions or judgments about what is and isn’t a cause in various imagined scenarios: these intuitive verdicts are what analyses of causation are measured against. This raises three methodological issues that I want to address briefly at the outset. The first concerns the evidential relation between causal intuitions and analyses or theories of causation, the second concerns the imaginary character of the cases about which judgments are made, and the third concerns the typicality of the intuitions or causal judgments in question. The evidential relation, as I will understand it, is one of inference to the best explanation. Our analysis of causation is primarily an attempt to describe the criteria employed when we make our causal judgments – it is in this sense an analysis of the concept of causation – and the fact that we employ these criteria is supposed to explain that we make the causal judgments we make. Obviously, this means that if our analysis of causation predicts that we make certain judgments about certain cases, that analysis is corroborated if this is indeed the judgments we make, and undermined if not. But it also means that we should strive to find a theory that fits into a more general understanding of the human mind and our conceptual capacities, thus yielding a more unified understanding of our causal judgments. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 4 Some philosophers have been interested in the physical nature of causation much in the way that scientists have been interested in the physical nature of light, or heat, or biological inheritance, and it has been suggested that causal processes should be understood in terms of transference of preserved quantities.1 If the physical nature of causation had been our subject matter, imaginary examples would have very little to offer our investigation. However, since our goal is to find the criteria employed in our causal thinking, the fact that the judgments against which the analyses are tested concern merely imagined or even unrealistic cases should not be a problem. Many of our everyday causal judgments are no doubt made in response to direct observation of the events concerned, but many others are made at least partly in response to descriptions of and various kinds of indirect acquaintance with the events. The assumption here, which I see no reason to question, is that our judgments are guided by the same fundamental criteria in both these kinds of cases. (If that should turn out to be erroneous, the theory sought for here would be a theory of our less observational causal judgments.) As people working on the analysis of causation are well aware, not everyone makes the same causal verdict as everyone else in all cases. However, although causal intuitions differ, my experience based on the philosophical literature and discussions with non-philosophers is that some verdicts are very much more common than others, especially if we discount various theoretically motivated judgments that philosophers make while HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 5 acknowledging a ‘pre-theoretic’ pull towards a different verdict. It is these ‘typical’ or ‘standard’ judgments that an analysis of the concept of causation can hope to explain. That is a challenging enough task. A final preliminary remark: Sometimes, I will talk about events as causes; at other times, I talk about conditions or states-of-affairs as causal relata. In the final analysis, I would take events to be causal relata in virtue of being instantiations or non-instantiations of properties by objects at a time, but I don’t think that I presuppose any particular non-standard view in the arguments of this paper. Counterfactual dependence and causation: some puzzles The idea that effects depend on their causes seems to be an important part of our concept of causation, and it is natural to express this dependence in terms of counterfactual conditionals. In most cases where c is a cause of e, it seems correct to say that if c had not occurred, neither would e have occurred. Moreover, in cases where we deny that c is a cause of e, we often say things of the form ‘e would have been the case with or without c’. But as cases of redundant causation show – cases where c is a cause of e, but where, had not c occurred and caused e, some other event, d, would have – the concept of causation and the concept of counterfactual dependence cannot be identified. Take an everyday example: The Elevator: You are waiting for the elevator to come, and you push the button to make it stop at our floor; I also want it to stop at HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 6 our floor and would have pushed the button if I had not seen you do it. Your pushing the button causes the elevator to stop, but the elevator would have been stopped without it. The well-known counterfactual theory of causation proposed by the late David Lewis solves this problem:2 Lewis-causation I: c is a cause of e if and only if e or some cause of e is counterfactually dependent on c. This would make that causal relation transitive, and transitivity gives the right result in the elevator case. Think about the state of the elevatorguiding mechanism that is responsible for the elevator’s stopping at our floor. Call the mechanism’s being in this state at the time where I have just seen you push the button ‘d’. The stopping of the elevator is counterfactually dependent on d: at this time I already believed that my pushing the button would make no difference and so wouldn’t have pushed it myself had d not been the case. (For the sake of argument, let us assume some principled constraint on admissible counterfactuals that rules out ‘backtracking’ counterfactuals such as ‘Had d not been the case, you would have to not have pushed the button, in which case I would have pushed the button.’) Moreover, d is counterfactually dependent on your pushing the button: if you had not pushed the button, I would have pushed it, but at a later time, too late to produce d. Hence, your pushing the button qualifies as a cause of the elevator’s stopping. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 7 Problems remain, however, when we turn to another family of cases, including: John and Jill: John and Jill each throw a pebble at a window and Jill’s pebble gets there first, breaking the glass. Had not Jill’s pebble been thrown, John’s pebble would have broken the glass, but Jill’s throw was nevertheless a cause of the breaking of the window. This is a case of what Lewis calls ‘late preemption’ or ‘late cutting’, where the alternative cause is doomed – cut off from the effect – only when the effect is achieved by the actual cause: only when the glass has been broken by Jill’s pebble is John’s pebble rendered inefficacious, flying through the hole in the window. In such cases, there is no intermediate part of the process ranging from Jill’s throw to the breaking of the window on which the breaking depends: in contrast to what common sense tells us, Lewis’s early counterfactual theory does not count Jill’s throw as a cause of the breaking. (As is well known, this will depend on how the effect is individuated: Jill’s throw would certainly qualify as a cause of the breaking exactly as it occurred, for if Jill had not thrown her pebble, the window would have broken differently. The assumption here is that the breaking is individuated such that the counterfactual ‘If Jill had not thrown her pebble, the window would still have broken’ comes out correct.) Lewis’s response was to define causation in terms of a notion of quasidependence, where an event, e, quasi-depends on another event, c, if and HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 8 only if they are distinct parts of a process – events taking place in a spatiotemporal region – sharing intrinsic character with a nomologically possible process in which the counterpart of e depends on a counterpart of c:3 Lewis-causation II: c is a cause of e if and only if e or some cause of e counterfactually depends or quasi-depends on c. When deciding whether Jill’s throw counts as a cause of the breaking, we are thus allowed to consider the nomologically possible scenario where John does not throw his pebble. In that scenario, dependence is reinstated. This means that the actual breaking quasi-depends on Jill’s throw, which thus qualifies as a cause of the breaking. Not only does this move give the right result for both early and late cutting, it also seems to latch on to some of our intuitive reason for our judgments in the above cases. Take the elevator case. Your pushing the button caused the elevator to stop because disregarding events external to what happened in the elevator mechanism following your push – this constituting a process – the stopping depended on the pushing. Since my desire had nothing to do with that process, the fact that it would have been at the start of such a process is quite irrelevant. Moreover, my desire is not a cause since the stopping didn’t depend on it, and since there was no process along which my desire brought about the stopping. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 9 Although some improvements have been made that I will try to preserve when giving my own account of the relevant kind of dependence, trouble abounds. For example, Jonathan Schaffer has recently proposed the following puzzle case for theories taking counterfactual dependence to be central to our concept of causation:4 Merlin and Morgana: In a world somewhat like ours but with a magic realm, thorough magical experiment has shown that enchantments only take place at midnight, and that the enchantment invariantly matches the content of the spell cast at the highest altitude the preceding day. Spells cast at lower altitudes only match the enchantment if they also match the spell cast at the highest altitude.5 One day, Merlin casts a spell at the top of the mountain to turn the prince into a frog; the same day, Morgana casts a spell with the same content from down the valley. No other spells are cast. The prince turns into a frog at midnight. Most people seem to agree that Merlin’s, but not Morgana’s spell caused the enchantment, but it is unclear whether there are causal intermediaries such that Merlin’s spell, but not Morgana’s, could be seen as a cause of these. Hence, it is unclear whether Lewis’s original theory avoids saying that neither spell is a cause: transitivity doesn’t solve the problem in any obvious way. Furthermore, it seems that the appeal to quasi-dependence of Lewis’s refined theory gives the opposite result: the enchantment would seem to HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 10 quasi-depend on both spells. Neither is a welcome result if we want to account for the standard intuition. Now, Michael McDermott argues that Morgana’s spell did cause the frogification, and part of his argument is that both Merlin’s and Morgana’s spells are lawfully sufficient conditions for the enchantment.6 But his is hardly a standard reaction, and seems to be based on the unavailability of a theoretically pleasing way of explaining the distinction between the two spells: I hope to be providing such a way. One might of course doubt the value of intuitions concerning examples that are pure fantasy when deciding what causation really is. But the primary objective of this paper is to give a unified explanation of our causal judgments, and most people are happy to make causal judgments about Merlin and Morgana. Moreover, Lewis himself was concerned enough to propose a new theory employing the notion of influence: Where C and E are distinct actual events, let us say that C influences E if and only if there is a substantial range, C1, C2... of different nottoo-distant alterations of C (including the actual alteration of C) and there is a range E1, E2... of alterations of E, at least some of which differ, such that if C1 had occurred, E1 would have occurred, and if C2 had occurred, E2 would have occurred, and so on. Thus we have a pattern of dependence of how, when, and whether upon how, when, and whether.7 This is used to modify Lewis’ original theory: HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 11 Lewis-causation III: c is a cause of e if and only if e or some cause of e is influenced by c. One striking problem with this definition is that it sees causation where we do not: a rain delays and changes the direction and rapidity of a forest fire, but we find it absurd to say that, for this reason, it caused the fire.8 Perhaps, though, the notion of influence is enough to let us say why, in cases of redundant causation, the cause is a cause and the potential cause is not: the former has more influence on the effect than the other. Then we get something like: Lewis-causation IV: c is a cause of e if and only if e or some cause of e is either counterfactually dependent on c or more influenced by c than by any event on which it would have been counterfactually dependent had not c occurred. As Lewis points out, this seems to give the right result in the case of John and Jill. Small alterations in the speed, spin or timing of Jill’s throw or the size of her pebble makes a lot of difference to the details of how the window breaks – to the shape of the shards and the direction they fall, say – whereas small alterations in the speed, spin or timing of Jack’s throw or the size of his pebble makes much less of a difference to the breaking, going little beyond minute variations in the gravitational field, say.9 It also seems to give the right answer to the Merlin and Morgana case: small alterations in the content of Merlin’s spell makes corresponding differences to the HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 12 enchantment, whereas small alterations of Morgana’s spell makes no such difference. Unfortunately, this does not help with some other cases. For example, consider: Merlin, Morgana and Cerridwen: From the highest mountain in the magical world, Cerridwen is watching the tired Merlin make his way up his mountain to cast the spell to turn the Prince into a frog. Wanting to make sure that Merlin does not fail for some reason or other, Cerridwen is ready to cast a frogification spell at her mountaintop, should Merlin fail. Merlin casts his spell; Cerridwen does not. Unknown to both, Morgana has cast her frogification spell down in the valley. No other spells are cast that day, but had Merlin cast a different spell, or none at all, Cerridwen would have. In this case, Morgana’s spell does not in the least influence the fate of the Prince, but neither does Merlin’s. On all reasonably small variations of Merlin’s spell, the Prince will turn into a frog, and it is not obvious that transitivity will help one bit. By contrast, Cerridwen’s intention to cast a spell should Merlin fail has obvious and great influence on the outcome: there are many small variations of her intention that will make a great difference to what happens at midnight. And yet it seems clear that Merlin’s spell caused the outcome whereas Cerridwen’s intention did not. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 13 Other problems arise from the fact that all Lewis’s theories take causation to be transitive. This assumption is at odds with our intuitions concerning the following example, discussed by Ned Hall:10 Plain Switching: I switch a train from track A to track B. Both tracks run parallel and merge just before the station a few miles later. The train arrives at the station, but my switching made no difference in that regard: it would have reached the station equally well along track A. The standard (pre-theoretic) intuition about this case seems to be that my switching didn’t cause the train’s arrival at the station, although the arrival depended on the train’s running on track B later on, which depended on the switching. Hence, the causal relation, as ordinarily grasped, can’t be identified with a chain of dependence holding between the relata. Moreover, the reason why the arrival wasn’t caused by the switching seems to be exactly that the arrival didn’t depend on the switching. So although both Lewis’s revised theories keep counterfactual dependence at the core of our concept of causation, they seem to demand too little dependence. Now, Hall argues at length that our intuitions in this kind of case should be discounted. However, his main reason for doing so seems to be that there is no relevant difference between this case and other cases where we have quite different intuitions. But the only way to decide whether some difference is relevant is to have an adequate analysis of the concept of HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 14 causation, and one of the criteria of adequacy for such analyses would seem to be whether they accommodate common intuitions. So, if we can come up with an analysis that handles switching cases and is doing as well as other analyses, that analysis should be the judge. And suggesting such an analysis is exactly what I propose to do later on in this paper. However, let me say a few words about a response of Hall’s that does not question our intuitions about the switching. Consider this modified case: Contrived Switching: “... hold the details of the arrival fixed, but alter the extraneous events so drastically that the way the train gets to its destination, in the counterfactual situation in which it travels [along A], is completely different from the way it, in fact, gets to its destination: it stops after a short while, gets taken apart, shipped piecemeal to a point near its destination, reassembled, and all this in such a way as to guarantee that nothing distinguished its counterfactual from its actual arrival.”11 The added complication of the counterfactual scenario radically decreases the urge to disqualify the switching as a cause. Why? One explanation would be that, in spite of instructions to keep actual and counterfactual arrival indistinguishable, we take the contrived journey to delay the arrival. To avoid this source of error, let a group of magicians handle the dissembling, shipping and reassembling at the speed necessary. I do not think that this changes the reaction much, however. Hall himself has a HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 15 different explanation of the difference in reactions to Plain Switching and Contrived Switching. Using an idea from L. A. Paul,12 he suggests that it might be because in the former, the actual and the counterfactual routes were similar enough for us to see them as the same event – traveling towards the station – although with different aspects (along A, and along B, respectively). Suppose that he is right in that regard, and suppose that we accept Lewis’s original version of the counterfactual theory. Then we could say that although traveling towards the station caused the arrival, the switching didn’t cause the traveling towards the station but only an aspect thereof on which the arrival did not depend, and so didn’t cause the arrival, even assuming transitivity. Apparently, Hall’s suggestion could save some version of the counterfactual analysis from this kind of counterexample. However, a closer look reveals that the similarity of actual and counterfactual journeys along tracks is largely irrelevant to our negative causal judgment in the initial case. Consider: Reversed Contrived Switching: I switch a train from track A to track B. Both tracks run parallel and merge just before the station a few miles later. The train arrives at the station, but my switching made no difference in that regard: it would have reached the station equally well along track A. What it did, however, was to completely change the way the train got to its destination: in stead of going straight along the tracks in its normal fashion, it was now stopped after a short while, got taken apart, shipped piecemeal to a point HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 16 near its destination, reassembled, and all this in such a way as to guarantee that nothing distinguished its counterfactual from its actual arrival (perhaps some magic was needed to get there in time). Was changing the switch among what caused the train’s arrival at the station? I believe most people regains the intuition from Plain Switching, denying that the switching caused the arrival. However, the two journeys are as dissimilar as in Contrived Switching: this is not at all what one should expect given Hall’s explanation. A more straightforward explanation – which I will substantiate and qualify later on – seems to be that the contrived counterfactual journey was less obvious, and that this reinstates an appearance of counterfactual dependence of the arrival on my switching.13 Here is a different case of failing transitivity: Cory’s Scurvy: Cory brought a bottle of vitamin pills when boarding for her sail across the Atlantic. Unfortunately, the pills were lost during the first storm, and after some weeks Cory had a bad case of scurvy going. Assume that bringing her pills did not cause Cory to board, or to miss out on some other source of vitamin C. In that case, Cory’s contraction of scurvy depended on her not having her vitamin pills, which depended on her losing them during the storm, which depended on her bringing them on board in HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 17 the first place. But it makes no sense to say that bringing a bottle of vitamin pills caused her scurvy. Why? Apparently because scurvy would have been a problem anyhow: because dependence fails. And yet all Lewis’s theories seem to say that bringing the pills on board was among what caused Cory’s scurvy. We might want to say, as Hall does in discussing and dismissing a somewhat similar case, that causation demands a causal process: perhaps bringing the bottle didn’t cause the scurvy because there was no causal process connecting the two.14 Of course, to understand this suggestion we need some idea of what a causal process is. Perhaps we could say that a causal process is a series of counterfactually dependent positive events or states-of-affairs. It is because losing the bottle caused Cory not to get enough vitamin C that she got scurvy, but not getting enough vitamin C isn’t a positive event or a positive state-of-affairs: hence bringing the bottle did not cause the scurvy. But whether or not absences or negative states-ofaffairs are ontologically dubious, their being a part of the chain of dependence is not by itself what disqualifies Cory’s bringing the bottle as a cause of her disease. For it seems straightforwardly true that lack of vitamin C causes scurvy, that losing the bottle caused a lack of vitamin C, and that Cory’s bringing the bottle on board caused her to lose it. (Admittedly, the last claim might seem awkward. The reason for this, I suggest, is that for most practical purposes, we expect there to be more salient and proximate and practically relevant causes of the loss of the HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 18 bottle than bringing it on board. You would not find the claim odd, however, if you were Cory’s sister, constantly worried about her bringing too many things along and losing half of them. By contrast, whatever your interests and prior expectations, you will find it implausible that Cory’s bringing the bottle caused her scurvy.) Lewis took an opposite line of defense, arguing that our reluctance to ascribe causation in cases like this stems from mistaken assumptions: in the end, we should accept that bringing the bottle caused the scurvy.15 However, Lewis’s defense rests on the assumed impossibility of accounting for early cutting in a theoretically pleasing way without invoking transitivity. The account presented in the following sections solves that problem, and so does an interesting recent version of the counterfactual theory by Christopher Hitchcock – or so it seems.16 Consider again The Elevator. I walk to the elevator, just in time to see you push the button to make it stop at our floor: shortly thereafter, it stops. Had you not pushed the button, I would have, and the elevator would have stopped. One intuitive way of explaining why your push did cause the elevator to stop is to say that I did not in fact push the button, and given that, the stopping depended on your pushing. Hitchcock’s presentation of the theory is technically complex, but the following sketch will do: Hitchcock-causation: An event c is a cause of an event e if and only if HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 19 (a) there is a true counterfactual of the form ‘if some event alternative to c had been the case, e would not have occurred’ or (b) there is a counterfactual of the form ‘if some event alternative to c had been the case, and d had still occurred, e would not have occurred’ such that (i) d is some actual event (or set of events) that is distinct from the putative cause and effect and (ii) the antecedent of the counterfactual isn’t too remote, far-fetched or absurd.17 This handles our judgments regarding The Elevator nicely: ‘If you had refrained from pushing the elevator button and I still had not pushed it, the elevator would not have stopped’ seems just fine. Moreover, it seems to handle John and Jill fairly well: ‘If Jill had not thrown her pebble and John’s pebble had still not hit the window, it would not have broken’ sounds all right. More importantly, however, it seems to handle Merlin and Morgana very well. Merlin’s spell qualifies as a cause, for ‘If Merlin had cast a spell turning the Prince into a lizard, the Prince would not have turned into a frog’ is obviously true. By contrast, Morgana’s spell does not pass the test. The counterfactual ‘If Morgana had cast a spell turning the Prince into a lizard and Merlin had still cast a spell with the same content as Morgana’s, the Prince would not have turned into a frog’ is of course true. Moreover, its antecedent might seem about as far-fetched as those of the counterfactuals used to establish your pushing the elevator and Jill’s throwing the pebble as causes. But the event that Merlin casts a spell with the same content as HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 20 Morgana’s is not conceptually distinct from the putative cause, so this counterfactual is disqualified. Furthermore, Hitchcock-causation yields the right result in Merlin, Morgana and Cerridwen: ‘If Merlin had cast a spell turning the Prince into a lizard and Cerridwen had still not cast any spell, the Prince would not have turned into a frog’ seems just fine. So it seems to be a clear improvement on Lewis’s suggestions. One of the selling points of the account is that it handles cases of intransitivity quite well. That seems true if we consider Cory’s Scurvy. Looking for true counterfactuals of the form ‘If Cory had not brought her vitamin pills and ... would still have been the case, she would not have contracted scurvy’, nothing springs to mind, or at least nothing with a nonremote antecedent. The available treatment of Plain Switching is not quite so convincing, however. The claim would be that any correctly formed true counterfactual of the form ‘If I had not moved the switch from A to B but ... would still have been the case, the train would not have arrived at the station’ would have an antecedent that is quite remote. But consider: ‘If I had not moved the switch from A to B and the train still wouldn’t have passed the midpoint of track A, it would not have arrived at the station.’ That counterfactual seems true, and the possibility given in the antecedent seems no more far-fetched than my refraining from pushing the elevator button even when you do not push it, or John’s pebble not hitting the window even if Jill doesn’t throw hers, which Hitchcock takes to be perfectly all right.18 At the very least, this calls for clarification of the notion of HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 21 remoteness. And we need substantial clarification: to say merely that these are possibilities that we do not in fact consider to be relevant for the purpose of making causal judgments would amount to little more than ad hoc tinkering. Given a suitable clarification of remoteness, Hitchcock’s account might have the means to explain the difference between Plain Switching and Contrived Switching, and between Contrived Switching and Reversed Contrived Switching. The possibility relevant to Contrived Switching is that I would not make the switch and the train would still not go through the whole contrived route. The possibility relevant to Plain and Reversed Contrived Switching is that I would not make the switch and the train would not travel down track A. The former seems less remote than the latter, which suggests that my switching might qualify as a cause in Contrived Switching but not in the other two cases, just as it should. But Hitchcock-causation seems to have no way of handling the following: Explosive Switching: As before, I switch the train from A to B, but then I blow up track A. However, since I am a nice person I would have left the track intact if I had not made the switch first. So if I had not made the switch, the train would still have arrived at the station along track A. As in Plain Switching, it still seems unintuitive to say that my switching caused the arrival at the station, and exactly for the reason that dependence HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 22 fails. And yet, a counterfactual that reveals Hitchcock-causation is not hard to come by: ‘had I not switched the train over but still blown up track A, the train would not have arrived at the station’. Here, the antecedent is no more far-fetched than what was employed in the elevator case: ‘If you had not pushed the elevator button and I still had not pushed it, the elevator would not have stopped’. Or take the following case from Michael McDermott: Two Servants: “I order my two servants to push in opposite directions against a moveable object: it stays still. ... intuition denies that the order caused the object to stand still.” Clearly, the object’s remaining at rest depends on the order in the way needed for Hitchcock-causation: ‘If I had not ordered my two servants to push but one of them still would have pushed, the object would not have remained at rest’ is just fine.19 Again, Hitchcock’s analysis gives the wrong results. At least, it gives the wrong results unless the notion of a far-fetched antecedent is specified in such a way as to rule out these results. The Source of the Difficulty This concludes my discussion of the kind of cases that make it so difficult to provide a theory that captures the extent to which we think that effects must depend on their causes. On the one hand, it seems clear that sensitivity to dependence of effects on causes is an important part of our typical concept of causation, as witnessed by Plain Switching, Reversed HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 23 Contrived Switching, Explosive Switching and Two Servants. On the other hand, there is a variety of cases where dependence is not required for causation, as in The Elevator, John and Jill, Merlin and Morgana and Contrived Switching. So, while we take dependence to be an important feature of causation, we also refrain from taking certain factors into consideration when assessing independence. We ignore my readiness to push the elevator button, John’s throw, Morgana’s spell, and, in some cases, the features in virtue of which an unswitched train would have reached its destination along a contrived route. The various attempts to refine the counterfactual analysis of causation can all be seen as attempts to capture the extent to which various factors can be ignored in assessing dependence. Although all versions of the counterfactual theory of causation that have been considered here have problems with some of the cases discussed, new modifications of the theory might of course provide solutions.20 But there is a further problem of method: the modifications and complications considered so far leave us in the dark as to why we should be constantly occupied with causal relations; why we should attend to certain factors while ignoring others in assessing dependence. Unfortunately, this also leaves us without guiding principles when we try to accommodate anomalies, thus giving our complications a strong ad hoc appearance, not being guided by what originally motivated the theory. In the following sections, I will sketch an account of our causal thinking that not only predicts the puzzling variety of causal judgments we typically HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 24 make about the cases discussed and captures our reasons for these judgments, but also makes it quite intelligible that we have a concept of causation and care about causal relations. As I will try to show, the criteria to which our mechanisms for causal judgment are sensitive are exactly the primary criteria employed when considering something as a means to an end. Since these are criteria employed in all our practical dealings with the world, their involvement in such a conceptually basic notion as that of causation comes as no surprise. Before I can state my account of causal thinking, however, I need to put forth some assumptions about the workings of our minds on which the account relies. In the next three sections, I will propose hypotheses about how we represent aspects of the world; how we employ these representations in instrumental reasoning; and finally about how our causal thinking is a form of virtual instrumental reasoning. Representing Aspects of the World: The Constancy Hypothesis You have been assigned to record in a notebook the seconds at which the sun is shining at a particular spot on your favorite beach next month. A very cumbersome way of doing this is to have an entry for each and every second, and put an ‘s’ after entries representing seconds during which the sun was shining, leaving the others empty. However, when temporally ordered, seconds at which the sun is shining on that spot will tend to come in large groups, by the hundreds or thousands. In order to save work and notebooks, HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 25 it is therefore much wiser to record intervals during which the sun was shining. This could be accomplished by noting the second at which the sun starts shining and put an ‘s’ there; then wait for the first second at which the sun isn’t shining and write it down without the ‘s’; then repeat the procedure if needed. In a procedure like this, there is a default or ceteris paribus assumption that the shining as well as the non-shining continue. What I suggest is that our mind works according to similar principles, primarily recording changes and differences while assuming constancies: call this the ‘Constancy Hypothesis’. For example, in considering that an object has a certain property at a certain time, we will naturally consider that state as part of an interval that continues, ceteris paribus, in both temporal directions. Importantly, some of the things we can keep track of are states that come with default assumptions of certain changes. For example, clouds above your beach will normally be moving at a fairly constant speed relative to the sun and the beach, and the assumption will therefore be that the position of the cloud relative to sun and beach will change. Similarly, we can learn that the movements of clouds has implications for what times the sun will be shining at the beach: if the movement of the cloud is constant, the shining will vary. Movement is just one kind of state that implies changes, ceteris paribus; intentions form another important category, where, ceteris paribus, intentions to realize g is followed by the realization of g; and there are countless others such as states of decay, precipitation, and rejuvenation. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 26 The psychological role of ceteris paribus assumptions is motivated by cognitive economy. If we make a ceteris paribus assumption that something will continue to be the case, we continue to assume that it will be the case unless positive evidence to the contrary is brought to attention: that is the very point of making a default assumption. Moreover, positive evidence against an assumption will equally have a ceteris paribus character, and can be defeated by further evidence. Notice what this means: in assuming that p will be the case, ceteris paribus, and assuming that the ceteris paribus clause is satisfied, we can conclude that p will be the case without attending to – investing cognitive resources in – various possible defeaters of the ceteris paribus clause. The possibility of this kind of cognitive strategy obviously relies on a cooperative environment, one in which the absence of evidence that a certain ceteris paribus constancy is ended is itself reliable enough evidence that constancy holds. Fortunately, we live in an environment where this holds for a wealth of constancies. Determining Aspects of the World: Instrumental Reasoning In performing a piece of instrumental reasoning, classically conceived, you start with a desire for some goal, g, to be realized; you believe that some ‘supporting condition’, s, obtains such that if you perform a certain action, a, under s, g will indeed be realized: these beliefs combined with the desire make you decide to perform a, ceteris paribus. (This is very simplified, of course, but in ways that are peripheral to my argument.) In many cases, HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 27 instrumental reasoning has several steps. In such cases, the decision will rest on beliefs and intermediate desires in what I will call an ‘instrumental hierarchy’: (1) P decides to make it the case that a holds. (1) rests on (2), (3) and (4) (2) P believes that if s' holds and P decides to make it the case that a holds then a is realized. (3) P believes that s' holds. (4) P has an intermediary desire that a is realized. (4) rests on (5), (6) and (7) (5) P believes that if s holds and a holds then g will hold. (6) P believes that s holds. (7) P desires that g is realized. Instrumental reasoning leads to decisions and often enough to the realization of goals. But decisions are costly. They typically lead to actions that demand energy, time and attention, and might call for rethinking of previous plans. And they put constraints on further planning, unless revoked, which again takes rethinking. For that reason, the primary focus in decision-making is naturally on decisions given which the realization of our goals is necessary or highly probable. We also avoid making decisions for the purpose of goals that we know will be achieved without changes in our plans. We therefore tend to make decisions that seem necessary for the realization of our goals or without which their realization seems improbable. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 28 The latter feature brings the following constraint: in making decisions, our confidence that intermediary and final goals will be realized is conditional on our confidence that the decision is made. Intuitively, this means that conditional beliefs, such as (2) and (5) above, will be included in instrumental hierarchies only insofar as it is supported by some basic assumption of constancy, where the supporting conditions include that the ceteris paribus clause for that assumption is satisfied. For simplicity, I will express this by saying that we include conditional beliefs in our instrumental hierarchies only insofar as we take the consequent to follow lawfully from the antecedent. (Since none of the cases of causation discussed here invokes probabilistic assumptions, I will say nothing about the interesting relation between probabilistic reasoning and causal intuitions.) Now, given what I have just said, it might seem that we should take the following to be a condition for forming a decision: the non-realization of a goal should follow lawfully from the non-realization of intermediary goals and decisions, just as the realization of the goal should follow lawfully from the realization of intermediary goals and decision. In other words: we should take the realization of the goal to depend on the decision. However, when we do not know in advance whether a certain goal will be achieved without our decision, checking whether this is so might be cognitively cumbersome (if not practically inconvenient or impossible) and a certain degree of myopia rather expedient. Or more accurately, some checking for dependence will come for free: in focusing only on the building blocks in an instrumental HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 29 hierarchy, one might already be considering conditions in virtue of which the goal follows without the decision. It is checking for further dependence defeaters that will take a further cognitive effort, beyond what is needed for the most basic instrumental reasoning. Another aspect that will be part of basic instrumental reasoning is awareness of action-defeating side effects. Attention to side effects can of course be generally beneficial, for achieving one goal is no good if it means foiling another. Unfortunately, general scanning for potential bad consequences is an open-ended business with potentially huge demands on one’s cognitive economy, going well beyond the most basic instrumental reasoning. However, one kind of awareness of side effects is intrinsic to forming an adequate instrumental hierarchy: an agent needs to be sure that her action to achieve a goal does not annihilate the supporting conditions for achieving the goal by that action. For that reason, it very likely that basic instrumental reasoning with respect to some goal should include awareness of side effects qua side effects, should they be attended to when focusing on the building blocks of the instrumental hierarchy. Looking for further side effects takes cognitive effort beyond what is necessary for simple instrumental reasoning, just like looking for further dependence defeaters, but ensuring the integrity of the instrumental hierarchy is no cognitive extra. The suggestion, then, is that there is a basic myopic procedure of instrumental thinking the point of which is to put together a correct HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 30 instrumental chain such that the decision will be lawfully sufficient for the realization of a given goal. This procedure is sensitive to whether the realization of the goal depends on the decision, but only if this can be determined on the grounds of factors already attended to in determining whether the decision would be sufficient for the realization of the goal: factors to which attention had already been forced by the effort of putting together an instrumental hierarchy, we might say. In normal decisionmaking, this myopic procedure is of course typically surrounded by various degrees of awareness of possible dependence defeaters and side effects and sensitivity to various degrees of uncertainty, but it is the basic unit to which such further reasoning is added and also the procedure which is used in thinking about various side effects. And, I suggest, it is the procedure by means of which we decide whether one event is among what caused another. Thinking about Causes: Virtual Instrumental Reasoning There is of course prima facie reason to assume an intimate connection between our causal thinking and our instrumental reasoning, as it seems that in trying to achieve a certain goal by some means, one is trying to cause the realization of that goal by the realization of the means. This has spurred some philosophers to try to define causation in terms of action, hoping that this will explain such things the asymmetry of the causal relation. None of these attempts have become very popular, primarily because it has seemed that causation must be a more primitive notion than action – it would seem HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 31 that all action involves causation but not all causation involves action.21 Whatever the merits of this argument are, however, my primary ambition here is not to define causation in terms of action but to explain our puzzling variety of causal judgments in terms of what criteria we would need to employ in instrumental reasoning: the question of what causation is must wait. In the remainder of this paper, I will try to show how the variety of typical causal judgments discussed in the first section is what we should expect if causal judgments resulted from an application of the basic myopic procedure in a piece of virtual instrumental reasoning. If this is indeed the case, we not only have a unified explanation of a puzzling variety of cases, but also an explanation of why the concept of causation is central to our understanding of the world. If causal judgments are made according to principles that seem to be fundamental in instrumental reasoning, such judgments probably function to prime and adjust cognitive structures crucial to realizing goals in an effective way, letting us understand the world as opportunities for action. There is of course one notable difference between instrumental and causal reasoning. Whereas the former is necessarily limited by a real lack of knowledge – prior to knowing our decision, we do not know whether the goal will be realized – we can equally well talk about what did cause a certain known event as we do about what would cause a certain kind of possible event. The resulting claim, then, is this: HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 32 The Sufficiency and Restricted Dependence Hypothesis: In determining whether c is a cause of e, we try to determine whether both of the following hold: Sufficiency: some supporting conditions obtain in virtue of which e follows lawfully from c and Restricted Dependence: the realization of e does not follow lawfully from the non-realization of c together with conditions that we are forced to consider to determine that e followed lawfully from c, given full knowledge about facts about the situation (other than facts about what caused or would have caused what). In a different context, I argue that an elaboration of this hypothesis concerning the connection between instrumental and causal thinking explains our intuitions regarding causal asymmetry (the movement of the tree caused the movement of the shadow rather than the other way around) and spurious correlations (the fall of the barometer did not cause the rainstorm), as well as the apparent intelligibility but apparent absence of backward causation. However, what has been said should be enough to let us explain the variety of typical causal judgments introduced earlier on. Causal preemption and Restricted Dependence I will now use the Sufficiency and Restricted Dependence Hypothesis (SRDH) to explain our judgments about the cases of early and late cutting HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 33 and trumping. Start with The Elevator, our case of early cutting, where you pushed the elevator button and thereby caused the elevator to stop, even though I would have stopped if I had not seen you do it. According to SRDH, your action qualifies as a cause since, given an intact elevator mechanism, the stopping of the elevator follows lawfully from the pushing of the button. My desire for the elevator to stop and my readiness to push the button should you not do it are irrelevant, since they are beyond what we need to consider in order to determine that the stopping followed lawfully from your pushing. However, it might be thought that my desire also qualifies as a cause of the stopping, for the case involves circumstances such that the consequents of the following conditionals follow lawfully from their antecedents: (1) If you push the button, the elevator will stop. (2) If you don’t push the button, I will believe this. (3) If I believe that you don’t push the button, I will believe that the elevator won’t stop unless I push the button. (4) If I desire that the elevator stops at our floor and believe that it won’t stop unless I push the button, I will push the button. (5) If I push the button, the elevator will stop. From these conditionals it follows that: (6) If I desire that the elevator should stop, the elevator will stop. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 34 Now, (6) seems to express a law-like connection between my desire and the stopping of the elevator, for one could ensure that the elevator stops by making me desire for the elevator to stop. (This, of course, is a standard problem for theories taking causes to be sufficient conditions for the occurrence of effects.) The question, then, is whether Restricted Dependence is satisfied: whether considering conditions in virtue of which the stopping follows lawfully from my desire forces attention to conditions from which the stopping follows lawfully under the assumption that I do not desire for the elevator to stop. Here it might seem that we can know that (1) through (5) and hence (6) is true without being forced to consider the fact that you pushed the button. If that were the case, SRDH would erroneously say that my desire was a cause of the stopping of the elevator. But a closer look at the cognitive mechanisms involved in establishing Sufficiency reveals that Restricted Dependence is violated. Notice that (1) through (5) only yields (6) given: (7) You either push the button, or you don’t. What I will argue is that if we know that you pushed the button and use the disjunction expressed by (7) in establishing Sufficiency, we are forced to consider the fact that you pushed the button. And given attention to that fact, Restricted Dependence fails. The stopping of the elevator follows lawfully from the fact that you pushed the button, taken together with the supporting conditions for (1), which were brought to mind when seeing that HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 35 the stopping followed lawfully from my desire. And this, I suggest, is why we do not think that my desire qualifies as a cause of the stopping. My desire ensured that the elevator would stop, but your pushing the button caused the stopping and wasn’t caused by my desire. So, why does using the disjunction expressed by (7) force attention to the fact that you pushed the button? Because of the following: Activating Belief: If one believes that p and engages in causal reasoning employing a representation of p, or a representation that contains a representation of p, this will force activation of one’s belief that p.22 Using the disjunction expressed by (7) in establishing Sufficiency for my desire involves employing a representation containing a representation of your pushing the button. By Activating Belief, this forces activation of the belief that you pushed the button. As I see it, Activating Belief has strong theoretical support, given the hypothesis about causal thinking proposed in this paper, and given a representational model of human psychology. On this model, which I take to be quite well known (although not universally accepted), psychological states like believing, disbelieving, hypothesizing, desiring, etc involve inner representations as content-carrying parts. My belief that Todd is at home consists, in part, of a representation constituted by my concepts of Todd and of being-at-home, and so does my desire that Todd should be at home. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 36 Where the belief and the desire differ is with regard to how they let the representation – their content-carrying part – participate in practical and theoretical reasoning. The function of the belief is to guide action that relies on Todd’s being at home; the function of the desire is to produce actions that make it the case that Todd is at home. Now, inner representations can, in turn, contain or be constituted by further inner representations in the way that complex sentences can contain or be constituted by less complex sentences. For example, if I consider the possibility that Todd is either at home or at work, my grasp of this possibility involves a complex (disjunctive) inner representation which in turn involves as constituents inner representations of Todd’s being at home and of Todd’s being at work, respectively. Moreover, just as I can assert the disjunctive statement without asserting that Todd is at home, I can have a belief that has the disjunctive inner representation as its content-carrying part without having a belief that has one of the disjuncts as its contentcarrying part. Suppose now that we believe that Todd is at home. The question we need to answer to assess Activating Belief concerns what happens if we employ the complex representation that Todd is either at home or at work when we believe that Todd is at home. Will employing the complex representation force activation of our belief that Todd is home in the way relevant for Restricted Dependence? Differently put: Suppose that we direct the kind of myopic attention hypothesized for virtual instrumental reasoning at the HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 37 assumption that Todd is either at home or at work. Is that enough to activate our belief that Todd is at home? Yes. We have good reason to think that the cognitive activation of a representation that is the content-carrying part of a belief goes hand in hand with activation of that belief, for a substantial gap between the two would be detrimental to the point of having beliefs and indeed complex beliefs. Generally speaking, a belief is something one takes to be reliable enough to guide action. Consequently, for an inner representation to be the content-defining part of a belief is for it to have a certain practical and epistemological authority, an authority that shows in theoretical and practical inferences. Moreover, the general point of having beliefs constituted by complex representations is to transmit this kind of authority from representations constituted by one part of the complex to representations constituted by other parts. It is essential for such inferences to be sensitive to conflicts of authority, keeping us from jumping immediately from p and if p then not-q to not-q when we already believe in q, instead provoking further deliberation, say. And to have this sensitivity, the prior belief that q must be immediately available when the representation of q is activated. For that reason, I suggest that Activating Belief holds. Activating Belief explains why we deny that my desire for the elevator to stop is a cause of the stopping. And it is equally at work in John and Jill, the case of late cutting where Jill’s throw caused the window to break, but where the pebble thrown by John would have broken the window if Jill’s HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 38 had not. In considering conditions in virtue of which the breaking of the window follows lawfully from the occurrence of Jill’s throw, it seems quite clear that we can find such conditions that do not mention the whereabouts of John’s throw or his pebble. It is enough that the direction and kinetic energy of Jill’s pebble at the point of release and the location and brittleness of the window were related in suitable ways, and that there were no obstacles along the trajectory of the pebble from the point at which Jill let it go to the point at which it reached the window. John’s throw, by contrast, will fail as cause of the breaking for the same reason that my desire for the elevator to stop failed as a cause of the stopping. To understand why, notice that we cannot see John’s throw as a lawfully sufficient condition for the breaking in the same way that Jill’s throw was. There, the surface of the window was located in the trajectory of the stone; here, it is not. This, of course, corresponds to the intuitively crucial difference between the two throws: when John’s pebble arrives, the surface of the window is no longer there to be hit and broken. Absent the condition that the surface of the window is located in the trajectory of the stone, we need to invoke some weaker condition to achieve sufficiency, perhaps that the surface of the window was in the right location when the stone was thrown and that is has either not been dislocated or been dislocated by being broken. And by Activating Belief, this forces attention to the fact that it was broken already and leads to a violation of restricted dependence. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 39 Finally, consider Merlin and Morgana’s spells as putative causes of the prince’s transformation. Here, there is a sense in which Morgana’s spell ensures the transformation, for the content of a spell matches the enchantment at midnight unless the spell cast at the highest altitude the same day has different content. But in considering Morgana’s spell as lawfully sufficient for the enchantment, we are forced to consider the spell cast at the highest altitude that day and its content. The fact that Merlin cast his spell to turn the Prince into a frog at the highest altitude at which a spell was cast that day is thus part of the supporting conditions in virtue of which the enchantment follows lawfully from Morgana’s spell. And given that condition, the Prince’s enchantment follows lawfully even when it is assumed that Morgana does not cast her spell. Hence, Morgana’s spell does not qualify as a cause of the enchantment. By contrast, there is no need to consider the content of Morgana’s spell when seeing how the enchantment follows lawfully from Merlin’s spell, because Merlin’s spell is the spell cast at the highest altitude that day. As desired, Merlin’s spell, but not Morgana’s, comes out as a cause of the Prince’s enchantment.23 And the addition of Cerridwen to the story makes no difference to the outcome: Cerridwen’s intention in Merlin, Morgana and Cerridwen is just as irrelevant here as my intention was in The Elevator. Notice that, apart from giving the right verdicts in the above cases, SRDH seems to capture our intuitive reasons for the negative verdicts. Although my desire ensured the elevator’s stopping given some further HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 40 conditions, it fails as a cause because it only ensured the occurrence of either of two possible chains of events from which the stopping would follow lawfully, and the one that did occur did not depend on my desire. And although John’s throw ensured the breaking of the window, it only did so by ensuring the occurrence of either of two possible chains of events from which the stopping would follow lawfully, and the one that did occur – starting with Jill’s throw – ensured the breaking without itself being caused by John’s throw. Finally, Morgana’s spell did not cause the enchantment of the Prince because it only ensured the enchantment given the content of Merlin’s spell, which ensured the enchantment without depending on Morgana’s spell. In all cases where possible causes were preempted or trumped, they failed to satisfy the kind of restricted dependence to which instrumental reasoning is immediately sensitive. Intransitivity and the Constancy Hypothesis Although SRDH allows for chains of causation, it does not render the causal relation transitive. This is all well, for, as we have seen, transitivity frequently fails. First, consider Plain Switching. Here is, in rough outline, how we think that the arrival at the station follows lawfully from my switching, where (3) and (6) express lawful relations between antecedent and consequent: (1) I move the switch from A to B. (2) The train is heading towards the switch and the station. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 41 (3) If I move the switch from A to B and the train is heading towards the switch and the station then the train will be heading towards the station along track B. (4) follows from (1), (2) and (3): (4) The train will be heading towards the station along track B. (5) If the train will be heading towards the station along track B then the train arrives at the station. (6) follows from (4) and (5): (6) The train arrives at the station. Notice that there is no mention of the status of track A anywhere in the deduction. Moreover, without recourse to the fact that track A was intact, we cannot see that the train would have arrived at the station had I not made the switch. So it could seem that SRDH is satisfied. If that were indeed the case, my suggestion as to how causal judgments are formed erroneously predicts a positive judgment in this case: that my switching caused the arrival. However, attention to the Constancy Hypothesis will reveal that Restricted Dependence is violated. In explaining why my switching in Plain Switching didn’t cause the train’s arrival at the station, it is quite natural to say that since the train was heading in that direction already, it would have arrived there in any case. And the fact that the train was heading towards the switch and the station – item (2) in the deduction above – is indeed among the conditions needed to determine that train’s arrival followed from HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 42 the switching. Now, according to the Constancy Hypothesis, thinking about this fact brings in the constancy assumption that: CA The train will arrive at the station, ceteris paribus. Moreover, I suggest that in grasping the scenario of Plain Switching, we have assumed that there are no violations of the ceteris paribus clause for the train’s continued counterfactual journey up to the station. Furthermore, the assumption that the ceteris paribus clause is in fact satisfied in the counterfactual scenario where I do not move the switch needs no further cognitive work: that is the nature of ceteris paribus assumptions. We can thus conclude, attending only to the factors involved in seeing how the switching was sufficient for the train’s arrival at the station, that if I had not made the switch, the train would have arrived at the station. Hence, Restricted Dependence is violated, and this is why we think that the switching fails as a cause of the arrival. Before turning to other kinds of switching, I will re-examine The Elevator in order to eliminate a common misinterpretation of my thesis, clarifying what isn’t implied by the Constancy and Sufficiency and Restricted Dependence Hypotheses. Here is how these hypotheses might seem to predict the judgment that your pushing the button didn’t cause the elevator to stop. First, the fact that you pushed the button seems to force attention to the fact that the button wasn’t pushed before your action. This, in turn, brings in the constancy assumption: HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 43 CA* The button will continue not to be pushed, ceteris paribus. That, in turn, might seem to force attention to conditions for this being the case, which in turn would force attention to the fact that if you had not pushed the button, I would have. Moreover, in establishing Sufficiency for your action, we assumed that the elevator mechanism was intact. This, together with the fact that if you had not pushed the button, I would have, seems to establish that if you had not pushed the button, the elevator would have stopped. So it might seem that Restricted Dependence would be violated. However, even if one would grant that we are forced to see that the button wasn’t pushed before you pushed it (and this is quite doubtful), there is one major error in this reasoning. It is just false that an assumption of constancy such as CA* would force attention to the particular conditions in virtue of which the assumption does or does not hold true. In fact, if that were the case, focused cognition would be practically impossible, since pretty much every known fact would be brought to attention: through intermediaries, pretty much everything is lawfully related to pretty much everything. So it is just false that attention to CA* brings attention to my readiness to push the button. And since my readiness to push the button is not forced into attention, Restricted Dependence is preserved, along with the conclusion that your pushing caused the elevator to stop. The variations of Plain Switching are handled equally well by the Sufficiency and Restricted Dependence and Constancy Hypotheses. First, consider Contrived Switching, Hall’s variation where the counterfactual HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 44 journey involves stopping the train, disassembling and reassembling it and having it start anew. The fact that the train was heading in a certain direction prior to the switch and would so continue does not help us all the way to the counterfactual arrival in this case. The ceteris paribus clause of CA is violated when the train ceases to head towards the station, and we are not forced to consider the factors responsible for the counterfactual journey following after the stopping and disassembly. Hence, we think that my moving the switch from A to B does qualify as a cause of the arrival in this case. Also, it is no wonder why, in Reversed Contrived Switching – the case where the actual journey was contrived and complex – we would lose the intuition from Contrived Switching that the switching caused the arrival: in deciding that my switching was lawfully sufficient for the arrival we are again forced to see that dependence was violated, just as in Plain Switching. Turn to Explosive Switching, the variation of the switching case in which I blow up track A after having set the switch to track B. The reasoning would follow the same line as in Plain Switching, but in considering the train’s counterfactual journey along track A, the fact that track A was destroyed would come to mind. And without attention to the fact that the destruction of track A was an effect of my switching, it would seem that Restricted Dependence is satisfied, for the ceteris paribus clause of CA would be violated. But as I argued when discussing instrumental reasoning, the basic myopic process of putting together an instrumental hierarchy will involve awareness of side-effects qua side-effects, should they be brought to HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 45 attention. And the fact that track A had been destroyed was indeed brought to attention. Hence, the fact that the destruction of track A was an effect of my switching is also brought to attention, which means that the destruction is disregarded when we check for dependence. As a result of this, the ceteris paribus of CA holds, Restricted Dependence is again violated, and my action fails as a cause of the train’s arrival. Again, we get the right result. As I mentioned when introducing Plain Switching, Ned Hall claims that we are wrong in denying that my moving the switch was among what caused the train to arrive at the station. In particular, he argues that Plain Switching has the same structure as the following case, and that our causal judgments should be the same in both: The Kiss: Billy and Suzy have grown up. One day, they meet for coffee. Instead of greeting Billy with her usual formal handshake, however, Suzy embraces him and kisses him passionately, confessing that she is in love with him. Billy is thrilled – for he has long been secretly in love with Suzy, as well. Much later, as he is giddily walking home, he whistles a certain tune. What would have happened had she not kissed him? Well, they would have had their usual pleasant coffee together, and afterward Billy would have taken care of various errands, and it just so happens that in one of the stores he would have visited, he would have heard that very tune, and it would have stuck in his head, and consequently he would have whistled it on his way home [just as he actually did].24 HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 46 As Hall points out, there is no question but that the kiss was among what caused Billy to whistle that tune. Furthermore, Hall claims that there is no relevant difference between this case and Plain Switching – the structure of counterfactual dependence seems to be the same, and both seem to be cases where one event interferes with a process that would have led to the effect in any case – and proceeds to argue that we should accept that my switching did cause the arrival, initial appearances to the contrary. But Hall is wrong in his claim that there is no relevant difference between the cases: they differ with respect to Restricted Dependence. In Plain Switching, the fact that the train was heading in a certain direction did the work of forcing attention to the counterfactual journey. But there is no sense in which, ceteris paribus, Billy was heading to a store where the tune was played such that this fact about Billy was a supporting condition in virtue of which Billy’s whistling followed lawfully from Suzy’s kissing him. Hence, there is nothing that forces attention to the supporting conditions for such a counterfactual history, which means that Restricted Dependence is preserved. Contrast this with a case that does share the structure of Plain Switching: The Dog Bite: A terrorist plans to detonate a bomb. The day before, his dog bites off his right forefinger, so when he goes to press the button he uses his left forefinger instead. HOW EFFECTS DEPEND ON THEIR CAUSES... 47 It seems clear that the dog bite did not cause the subsequent explosion, and I would suggest that the intention to detonate the bomb is the crucial element, intentions being intuitively understood as headings-to-theintended-state-of-affairs, and this brings the assumption that the intended state-of-affairs will be realized, ceteris paribus. Two Servants is interestingly different. Here, Restricted Dependence fails because considerations of what was already the case are forced into the picture in a rather direct way. The reasoning seems to be as follows: (1) I order my two servants to push in opposite directions against a moveable object, M. (2) If I order my two servants to push in opposite directions against M, they will do so. (3) follows from (1) and (2): (3) My two servants push in opposite directions against M. (4) If my two servants push in opposite directions against M, M