Causalisms Reconsidered

Dialogue 43 (1):147- (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We reply to Andrew Sneddon’s recent criticism of the causal theory of action (CTA) and critically examine Sneddon’s preferred alternative, minimal causalism. We show that Sneddon’s criticism of CTA is problematic in several respects, and therefore his conclusion that “the prospects for CTA look poor” is unjustified. Moreover, we show that the minimal causalism that Sneddon advocates looks rather unpromising and its merits that Sneddon mentions are untenable.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-25

Downloads
91 (#184,038)

6 months
15 (#157,754)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Citations of this work

How (not) to think about mental action.Andrei A. Buckareff - 2005 - Philosophical Explorations 8 (1):83-89.
Action.Andrew Sneddon - 2004 - Dialogue 43 (1):157-164.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments.R. Jay Wallace - 1994 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
The Significance of Free Will.Robert Kane - 1996 - New York, US: Oxford University Press USA.

View all 27 references / Add more references