scholarly journals The Problem of Deviant Casual Chains

2017 ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
Miguel Amen
Keyword(s):  
Theory Of Mind ◽  
Intentional Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action

In the following article I identify the source of Davidson's failure to provide an analysis of intentional action. It is shown that this failure should be seen as an instance of consistency within his overall theory of mind and action.In Actions, Reason and Causes (1963) Davidson defended the causal theory of action, according to which the intentions for which a person acts are the reasons for which he acts and those reasons cause the action.According to Davidson, a reason for an action A consists in the agent having a pro-attitude toward actions of a certain kind along with a belief that Aing is an action of that kind. Pro-attitudes can be seen as desires and wantings, giving goals and motives for action.

scholarly journals Pluralistic Attitude-Explanation and the Mechanisms of Intentional Action

2021 ◽  
pp. 130-153
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Burnston
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Propositional Attitudes ◽  
Intentional Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal History ◽  
Causal Processes ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Mind

According to the Causal Theory of Action (CTA), genuine actions are individuated by their causal history. Actions are bodily movements that are causally explained by citing the agent’s reasons. Reasons are then explained as some combination of propositional attitudes—beliefs, desires, and/or intentions. The CTA is thus committed to realism about the attitudes. This chapter explores current models of decision-making from the mind sciences, and argues that it is far from obvious how to locate the propositional attitudes in the causal processes they describe. The outcome of the analysis is a proposal for pluralism: there are several ways one could attempt to map states like ‘intention’ onto decision-making processes, but none will fulfill all of the roles attributed to the attitudes by the CTA.

scholarly journals Deviant Formal Causation

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah K. Paul
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Intentional Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Chains ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Causation

What is the role of practical thought in determining the intentional action that is performed? Donald Davidson’s influential answer to this question is that thought plays an efficient-causal role: intentional actions are those events that have the correct causal pedigree in the agent's beliefs and desires. But the Causal Theory of Action has always been plagued with the problem of “deviant causal chains,” in which the right action is caused by the right mental state but in the wrong way. This paper addresses an alternative approach to understanding intentional action inspired by G.E.M. Anscombe, interpreting that view as casting practical thought in the role of formal rather than efficient cause of action and thereby avoiding the problem of deviant (efficient) causal chains. Specifically, on the neo-Anscombean view, it is the agent’s “practical knowledge” – non-observational, non-inferential knowledge of what one is doing – that confers the form of intentional action on an event and is the contribution of thought to determining what is intentionally done. This paper argues that the Anscombean view is subject to its own problematic type of deviance: deviant formal causation. What we know non-observationally about what we are doing often includes more than what we intend to be doing; we also know that we are bringing about the foreseen side effects of acting in the intended way. It is argued that the neo-Anscombean view faces difficulty in excluding the expected side effects from the specification of what is intentionally done, whereas the Causal Theory has no such difficulty. Thus, the discussion amounts to an argument in favor of the Causal Theory of Action.

scholarly journals Deviant causal chains and intentional action

KÜLÖNBSÉG ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krisztián Nyárfádi
Keyword(s):  
Intentional Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Chains

There is a classical argument against the the so called "causal theory of action": the argument from deviant causal chains. This essay tries to show that this argument is not so strong as it first might seem to be, essentialy because the are promising answers to the argument. I reconstruct a strategy (exemplified by Searle and Mele) that can alleviate that concern stems from the deviant examples.

scholarly journals THE AGENT'S ROLE IN THE CAUSATION OF ACTION: IS MICHAEL SMITH'S CAUSAL THEORY OF ACTION IN TROUBLE?

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (142) ◽  
pp. 143-164
Author(s):  
Lucas Mateus Dalsotto
Keyword(s):  
Causal Explanation ◽  
Intentional Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
Action Explanation ◽  
Proper Role

ABSTRACT The goal of this paper is to find out if Michael Smith's version of the causal theory of action is able to solve David Velleman's agency par excellence challenge. Smith (2012) has claimed that his theory can deal with the challenge insofar as the exercise of the capacity to be instrumentally rational plays the intermediating role which Velleman (1992a) thinks of the agent as playing in the causation of action. However, I argue Smith misunderstands the challenge at hand, thereby failing to find the agent's proper role in action explanation. Moreover, I claim Velleman's objection puts Smith's account of the causal theory in trouble by showing it cannot reconcile the causal explanation of intentional action with our ordinary conception of agency. If Smith intends to explain what a 'full-blooded' intentional action is, I then believe he needs to incorporate into his theory a more robust account of rational guidance.

Actions and accidents

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Horst
Keyword(s):  
Special Kind ◽  
Intentional Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Alternative Account ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
Prevailing View

In acting intentionally, it is no accident that one is doing what one intends to do. In this paper, I ask how to account for this non-accidentality requirement on intentional action. I argue that, for systematic reasons, the currently prevailing view of intentional action – the Causal Theory of Action – is ill-equipped to account for it. I end by proposing an alternative account, according to which an intention is a special kind of cause, one to which it is essential that it represents its effect.

scholarly journals No facts without perspectives

Synthese ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramiro Glauer ◽  
Frauke Hildebrandt
Keyword(s):  
Mental States ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Basic Fact ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
De Re ◽  
De Dicto ◽  
Conceptual Confusion

AbstractPerner and Roessler (in: Aguilar J, Buckareff A (eds) Causing human action: new perspectives on the causal theory of action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 199–228, 2010) hold that children who do not yet have an understanding of subjective perspectives, i.e., mental states, explain actions by appealing to objective facts. In this paper, we criticize this view. We argue that in order to understand objective facts, subjects need to understand perspectives. By analysing basic fact-expressing assertions, we show that subjects cannot refer to facts if they do not understand two types of perspectivity, namely, spatial and doxastic perspectivity. To avoid conceptual confusion regarding different ways of referring to facts, we distinguish between reference to facts de re and de dicto.

scholarly journals Is Davidson's Theory of Action Consistent?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D Murray
Keyword(s):  
Human Action ◽  
Causal Theory ◽  
Donald Davidson ◽  
Theory Of Action ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Causal Theory Of Action ◽  
Small Industry ◽  
Common Objection ◽  
Train Of Thought

A theory of human action should provide an account of the connection between reason and action when an agent acts for a reason, and it should provide an account of the explanatory force of explanations of actions. On the causal theory of action, the connection between reasons and actions is that of event causality and explanations of actions are modeled on ordinary causal explanations, where events are explained by citing other events as their causes. A once common objection to the causal theory had it that reasons cannot be causes, since explanations of actions do not fit reason and action into a nomic nexus expressed by laws or law-like generalizations. Against this train of thought, Donald Davidson defends a version of the causal theory by arguing that the view that the connection between reasons and actions is that of event causality and the view that explanations of actions do not fit reasons and actions into a nomic nexus are compatible. Davidson's theory generated a small industry of criticism focusing on the implications of his version of the causal theory for the nature of the causal connection between reasons and actions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document