Advertisement

Causing and Doing

  • David-Hillel Ruben
Chapter

Abstract

I start by explaining what an intrinsic event is. The expression, ‘intrinsic event’, is not innocent; I explain it as best I can here, but the remainder of the book returns repeatedly to this idea and further clarifies it.

Philosophers and linguists interested in the question of the relation between doing and causing often refer to, and often conflate, two claims. One of the claims, which is often referred to as Causative Alternation (CA) in the linguistics literature, is an indisputable truth of semantics and the other, (PT) (for ‘Paraphrase Thesis’), is a controversial philosophical analysis. A theme of the chapter is the need to separate out views on the semantics of action verbs from views about the metaphysics of action.

The Paraphrase Thesis (PT) says, roughly, that an agent acts iff he [but note: he, not his action] causes some event, for instance, e, and e is then said (in many cases) to be intrinsic to that action. (PT) is false. Since it entails a biconditional, it has two parts: a left-to-right entailment and a right-to-left entailment. In this chapter I examine only the right-to-left entailment.

I distinguish the expressions ‘P caused such-and-such’, ‘P was a cause of such-and-such’, and ‘P was the cause of such-and-such’. I also introduce a distinction about causation in order to support my dismissal of the right-to-left entailment: remoteness of cause and partiality of cause.

Bibliography

  1. Alvarez, Maria. 1999. Actions and Events: Some Semantical Considerations. Ratio, new series XII (3): 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, Maria, and John Hyman. 1998. Agents and Their Actions. Philosophy 73: 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atwell, John E. 1969. The Accordion Effect Thesis. Philosophical Quarterly 19 (77): 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, John. 1998. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bach, Kent. 1980. Actions are Not Events. Mind 89 (353): 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, J. 1983. Agent-Causation. Mind 92: 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 1989. Natural Agency, 117–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chisholm, Roderick. 1964. The Descriptive Element in the Concept of Action. Journal of Philosophy 61: 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruse, D.A. 1972. A Note on English Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3 (4): 520–528.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, Donald. 2001. Aristotle’s Actions. In Truth, Language, and History, ed. Donald Davidson. 2005. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, L. 1979. Theory of Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Feinberg, Joel. 1970. Doing and Deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fockner, Sven. 2013. What is the Accordion Effect: Harmonizing Bratman’s Principles F and D. Springer Plus 2: 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor, J.A. 1970. Three Reasons for Not deriving ‘Kill’ from ‘Cause to Die’. Linguistic Inquiry I: 429–438.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gorovitz, Samuel. 1965. Causal Judgments and Causal Explanations. Journal of Philosophy LXII (23): 695–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart, H.L.A., and Tony Honoré. 1985. Causation in the Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hornsby, Jennifer. 1980. Actions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. Hovav, Malka Rappaport, and Beth Levin. 2012. Lexical Uniformity and the Causative Alternation. In The Theta System, ed. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hyman, John. 2015. Action, Knowledge, & Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katz, Jerrold. 1970. Interpretative Semantics vs. Generative Semantics. Foundations of Language 6 (2): 220–259.Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, G. 1965. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-16, Computational Laboratory of Harvard, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. 1986. Philosophical Papers. Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lombard, Lawrence. 1990. Causes, Enablers, and the Counterfactual Analysis. Philosophical Studies 59: 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackie, John. 1965 (1993). Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (4): 245–264. Reprint in Sosa and Tooley (eds.), Causation (Oxford 1993). 33–55.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1974. The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, Fabienne, and Florian Schäfer. 2014. Causation at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. In Causation in Grammatical Structures, ed. Bridget Copley and Fabienne Martin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Part II, chapter 9, 209–244.Google Scholar
  29. Mayr, Erasmus. 2011. Understanding Human Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCann, Hugh. 1998. The Works of Agency. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Menzies, Peter. 2012. Platitudes and Counterexamples. In The Oxford Handbook of Causation, ed. Helen Beebee et al., 341–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mill, John Stuart. 1970. A System of Logic. London: Longman Group.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, G.E. 1966. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2012. The Linguistic Expression of Causation. In The Theta System, ed. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni, 78–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. O’Connor, Timothy. 2011. Agent-Causal Theories of Freedom. In The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 2nd ed., 309–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Parsons, Terence. 1994. Events in the Semantics of English. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schäfer, Florian. 2009. The Causative Alternation. Language and Linguistics, Compass 3 (2): 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, Carlota. 1970. Jespersen’s “Move and Change” Class and Causative Verbs in English. In Linguistic and Literary Studies, ed. Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polomé, and Werner Winter, 101–108. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1972. On Causative Verbs and Derived Nominals in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 136–138.Google Scholar
  40. Steward, Helen. 2012. A Metaphysics of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Vendler, Zeno. 1972. Res Cogitans, 210–216. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Appendix II.Google Scholar
  42. Von Wright, G.H. 1977. Norm and Action. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David-Hillel Ruben
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations