Abstract

The text deals with the causal status of omissions. This problem is one of the arguments against treating omissions as full acts. I first discuss several arguments that are frequently cited in the literature against the recognition of the causal nature of omissions, showing that each of them is inconclusive. Then I a present a logical analysis known as the "sees to it" theory, which correctly captures a series of intuitions concerning activity, duty, and the ability to do something. With the help of this analysis I construct an interesting argument in favor of the causality of omissions.